S.Mariappan v. The Commissioner Of Municipal Administration

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.03.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY and W.M.P.(MD)No.5104 of 2025 S.Mariappan

...Petitioner

-Vs1.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Urban Administrative Building, No. 3, Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028.

2.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

3.The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli.

4.The Commissioner, Srivilliputhur Municipality, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

5.The Inspector of Police (Traffic), Srivilliputhur Town Police Station, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

...Respondents

1/5

PRAYER:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 4th respondent to remove the temporary shops erected by him in the center of the bus stand and to ensure the free flow of the traffic in the present old bus stand till the opening of the new bus stand.

For Petitioner : Mr.Sabari Bala Pandian For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.J.Parekh Kumar Standing Counsel For R5 : Mr.M.Karunanidhi Government Advocate

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.) Heard Mr.Sabari Bala Pandian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, Mr.J.Parekh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent and Mr.M.Karunanidhi, learned Government Advocate for the fifth respondent. 2.By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3.The petitioner claims that he has sent representation to the fourth respondent seeking to remove the temporary shops erected by him in the center of the bus stand for free flow of traffic. But till today, the representation of the petitioner is kept pending without any progress. 2/5

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that though the petitioner has sought for a larger relief in this writ petition, he would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the fourth respondent to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 21.01.2025, in accordance with law, within a time frame.

5.Considering the limited scope of the prayer now sought for by the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner either in the representation or in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the fourth respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.01.2025 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve [12] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (J.N.B.,J.) (S.S.Y.,J.) 14.03.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ta 3/5

To 1.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Urban Administrative Building, No. 3, Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028 2.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar 3.The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli 4.The Commissioner, Srivilliputhur Municipality, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District 5.The Inspector of Police (Traffic), Srivilliputhur Town Police Station, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District 4/5

J. NISHA BANU,J.

and S.SRIMATHY.J ta 14.03.2025 5/5