K.Pattulakshmi, v. The Director,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.08.2015 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI Writ Petition (MD) No.1815 of 2014 K.Pattulakshmi ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Director, Directorate of Technical Education, Chennai 600 025.
2.The Director, Town and Country Planning, Chennai.
3.The Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Thiruvananthapuram Road, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli.
4.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
5.The Executive officer, Special Grade Panchayat, Sankarnagar, Tirunelveli District.
6.The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Tirunelveli.
7.The India Cements Private Limited, Rep by its Managing Director, N.Srinivasan, Sankar Nagar, Tirunelveli District. 8.M.Petchipandian, Chairman, Sankarnagar Special Grade Panchayat, Sankarnagar, Tirunelveli District.
9.The Principal, Sankar Polytechnic College, Sankar Nagar, Tirunelveli District.
...
Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 6 to take necessary action against the 7th and 9th respondents for their unlawful construction based on the petitioner's representation dated 20.11.2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.T.Ramesh Raja For Respondents 1-4 :Mr.C.Selvaraj Special Government Pleader.
For 5th Respondent : Mr.S.Chandrasekar For 7th Respondent : Mr.Rahul Balaji https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
For 8th Respondent : Mr.R.Karthikeyan For 6th Respondent : No appearance
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by R.SUDHAKAR,J.) The prayer in the writ petition is to direct the respondents 1 to 6 to take necessary action against the respondents 7 and 9 for their unlawful construction, based on the petitioner's representation dated 20.11.2013.
2. Though the petitioner has sought for the relief as above, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that it would suffice if the representation dated 20.11.2013 submitted by the petitioner may be directed to be considered by the third respondent. 3.
Accordingly, without going into the merits of the petitioner's claim, the third respondent is directed to verify the nature of the complaint made by the petitioner and consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.11.2013 on its own merit and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned is free to deal with the matter on its own merit as per law.
4. With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar mj To 1.The Director, Directorate of Technical Education, Chennai 600 025.
2.The Director, Town and Country Planning, Chennai.
3.The Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Thiruvananthapuram Road, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli.
4.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
+1CC to Mr.R.Ponkarthikeyan Advocate Sr.No.46547 +1CC to Mr.P.T.Ramesh Raja Advocate Sr.No.46545 GJM/NGM/SS/11.9.15-2P-7C Writ Petition (MD) No.1815 of 2014 14.08.2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/