Madras High CourtWP(MD)/13209/2017disposed of

S.Ganesan v. The District Collector,

2017-08-08Honourable Mr Justice K.K. Sasidharan,Honourable Mr Justice G.R.Swaminathan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.08.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.13209 of 2017 S.Ganesan .. Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District.

2. The Commissioner, Tirunelveli Corporation, Tirunelveli.

3. The Assistant Commissioner, Thatchai Region, Tirunelveli Junction, Tirunelveli.

4. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Thatchai Region, Tirunelveli Junction, Tirunelveli.

5. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resource Organisation, Thamiraparani River Basin Division, Tirunelveli.2.

.. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.06.2017 for providing park facilities nearby Thirukurippu Thondar Street on the River Bed of Thamiraparani.

For petitioner : Mr.N.Madhava Govindan For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan Special Government Pleader for R1, R3, & R5 Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, for R2 & R4

O R D E R

*********** [Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.] The Writ Petitioner submitted his representation dated 30.06.2017 to the respondents authorities setting forth, the grievances of the residents of his locality. 2.They want a park to be set up. They are also complaining that the water supplied to them by the Corporation is not on the appropriate quantity. Since the representation was not acted upon, the present writ petition came up filed. 3.Heard, the learned counsel for the parties. 4.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent Corporation would submit that the place where the writ petitioner wants the park to be established is actually river poramboke. Therefore, this Court cannot accede to such an appropriate.

However, the request of the writ petitioner that water must be regularly supplied and that it should be potable deserves consideration. We therefore direct the second respondent to dispose of the writ petitioner's representation dated 30.06.2017 by taking appropriate remedial measures. In the very nature of things, this has to be a continuing performance of the constitutional duty cast on the local body.

5.This writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(crl side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: