Papanasam v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 31.03.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Papanasam ... Petitioner -vs1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Highways and Minor Ports Department, State of Tamil Nadu, State Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, State of Tamil Nadu, State Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

3.The Project Director, Office of the Project Director, Chennai Kanyakumari Industrial Corridor Project, No.76, Sardar Patel Road, CKICP Complex, Guindy, Chennai - 600025.

4.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Tirunelveli District.

5.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector,

Thoothukudi District.

6.The Divisional Engineer, CWCP Units, Maharaja Nagar, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

7.The Divisional Engineer, TNRSP Wing, Maharaja Nagar, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to complete the upgrading project from Tiruchendur - Palayamkottai- Ambasamuthram road (SH40-II) within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court for the safety of the public to prevent from the accidents by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 08.07.2022 in accordance with law. For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents :

Mr.P.Thilakkumar, Government Pleader

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.] The complaint of the petitioner is that laying of the State Highways between Tirunelveli and Ambasamuthram is being unduly delayed.

2. The sixth respondent has filed a status report wherein it is stated that the entire work will be completed by 22.06.2023. Present status of the work is also stated in the report.

3. In view of the said report, we do not see any reason to grant a Mandamus. The petitioner, of course, will have a right to revive if the works are not completed within a reasonable time.

4. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No Costs. [R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.] 31.03.2023 NCC :

Yes/ No Index :

Yes/ No Internet :

Yes PM

R.SUBRAMANIAN , J.

and L.VICTORIA GOWRI , J.

pm 31.03.2023