Madras High CourtWP/15228/2017dismissed as infructuous

Mrs.Rajalakshmi, Rep By v. The Chief Secretary,

2021-04-26Honourable Mr Justice D. Krishnakumar3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated 26.04.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR W.P.No.15228 of 2017 and WMP No.16526 of 2017 Rajalakshmi ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry, Secretariat, Beach Road, Puducherry.

2. The District Collector, District Collector Office, Karaikal, Puducherry.

3. The Deputy Collector (Revenue), Department of Prohibition, Office of the District Collector, Karaikal, Puducherry.

4. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office.

Karaikal, Puducherry.

5. The Member Secretary, Town Planning, Office of the Town Planning, Karaikal, Puducherry.

6. Chellamuthu, Proprietor of Sagaya Madha Wines, No.4, Kerudapalaya Street, Thirumalairayanpattinam, Karaikal, ... Respondents PRAYER:

Writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a direction of writ or order and in particular a Writ of Mandamus directing the 5th respondent not to give any permission or approval for the 6th respondent for constructing a building at No.29, Oduthurai Revenue Village, Karaikal in T.S.No.K/7/20/1. For petitioner : No appearance For respondents: Mr.A.V.Ramalingam Addl. Gov. Pleader (Puducherry) for R1 to R5 Mr.Saikrishnan for R6

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for directing the 5th respondent not to give any permission or approval to the 6th respondent for constructing a building at No.29, Oduthurai Revenue Village, Karaikal in T.S.No.K/7/20/1.

2. According to the petitioner, the 6th respondent is trying to construct a building in her agricultural land by using his undue influence to open a wine shop and hence this writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents R1 to R5 submitted that the proposal for construction in the petitioner's land was dropped and a building was constructed in some other land.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent submitted that inview of the objection made by the petitioner, as per the orders passed by the Government, the 5th respondent has given an alternative site for constructing a building to open a wine shop, and hence, the relief sought for in this writ petition has become infructuous.

5. At the time of admission, no interim order was granted by this court.

6. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent is recorded. Inview of the above, no further adjudication is required in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, the writ miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mst To