Madras High CourtWP(MD)/13603/2017disposed of

R.Mani v. Teh Chief Conservator Of

2017-08-07Honourable Mr Justice R. Mahadevan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.08.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P(MD) No.13603 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.10632 & 10633 of 2017 R.Mani ... Petitioner -vs1.

The Chief Conservator of Forest, Panagal Buildings, Annasalai, Saidapet, Chennai-15.

The Additional Conservator of Forest, Virudhunagar.

The District Forest Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

The Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Sivagangai.

The Assistant Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Singampunari, Sivagangai District.

... Respondents PRAYER:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant the petitioner shifting permission as per the petitioner's application now pending with the respondents 1 to 3 office in file Na.ka.No. 2833/2015/T/ dated 15.09.2015.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.S.R.Venkataramana.

For Respondents : Mr.M.Alagathevan, Spl. Govt. Pleader.

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed, seeking to direct the respondents to grant the petitioner shifting permission for his Saw Mill as per the petitioner's application now pending with the respondents 1 to 3 office in file Na.ka.No. 2833/2015/T/ dated 15.09.2015.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, who had purchased a Saw Mill by name MAM Kumar Saw Mill, has decided to shift the same to another place in S.No.645/14 (Patta No.4207), which also belongs to the very same petitioner and therefore, he has submitted an application dated 24.07.2015 to the respondents, requesting them to permit him to shift his Saw Mill Industry to a new place. Though the said application was taken on file by the respondents 1 to 3 in Na.Ka.No.2833/2015/T dated 15.09.2015, no orders have been passed thereon by the respondents till now. Aggrieved by the same, he is before this Court with the above prayer.

4. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader has refuted the submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that on the application dated 15.09.2015, an order has already been passed by the respondents on 06.06.2015 itself.

5. In reply to the above, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no such order has been served on the petitioner till date.

6. Considering the submissions made on either side and in order to give quietus to the issue, this Court directs the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the application dated 15.09.2015 of the petitioner and pass necessary orders thereon, if not already passed, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after due notice to the petitioner. It is needless to point out that in case the respondents had already passed the order on 06.06.2015, as pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the order to be supplied, it is always open to the petitioner to seek appropriate legal remedy, if required.

7. With the above direction, this petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Writs) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar

To: