Madras High CourtWP(MD)/8364/2014dismissed

V.Ramesh, Advocate v. The Secretary

2016-09-12Honourable Mr Justice M.V. Muralidaran,Honourable Mr Justice S. Nagamuthu3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.09.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN W.P.[MD].No.8364 of 2014 V.Ramesh : Petitioner Vs.

1.The Secretary, State Highways Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai.

2.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

3.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai.

4.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

5.The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Madurai Division, Madurai.

6.The Divisional Engineer, State Highways Department, Zonal Office, Madurai Division, Madurai.

7.The Secretary to Government, Local Administration and Water Supply Department, Chennai-9.

[R-7 suo motu impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 05.12.2014, in W.P.(MD)No.8364 of 2014] : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to construct a mini fly over on Dr.Ambedkar Road between the MGR statue and Periyar Statue, in front of the Madurai District Court Complex, along with a pedestrian sub way in front

and opposite of the main entrance, of the Madurai District Court Complex.

For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents 1,2&4to7 : Mr.M.Govindan, Special Government Pleader For Respondent No.3 : Mr.R.Murali ********

O R D E R

*********** [Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.] The petitioner, an Advocate by profession, has come up with this Public Interest Litigation seeking a direction to the respondents to construct a mini fly over on Dr.Ambedkar Road between the MGR Statue and Periyar Statue, in front of the Madurai District Court Complex, along with a pedestrian sub way in front and opposite of the main entrance of the Madurai District Court Complex.

2. Today, when the Writ Petition was taken up for hearing, there was no representation for the petitioner. The petitioner also has not made appearance. We have heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1,2 and 4 to 7 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent. We have also perused the records carefully.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that technically it is not feasible to construct a mini fly over and a pedestrian sub way, as requested by the petitioner. Instead, in order to regulate the traffic in front of the District Court Complex in Madurai, there is a proposal to convert the road as a one way by constructing a median. The said statement is recorded.

4. Since it involves technical issues and also financial commitment, this Court cannot issue a direction as prayed for by the petitioner. We accept the statement made by the learned Special Government Pleader for regulating the traffic by putting up a median on the road. In view of the same, no further direction could be given in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.

sd/- Assistant Registrar (W) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar

SML To 1.The Secretary, State Highways Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai.