Madras High CourtWP(MD)/22431/2017disposed of

N.Arimuthu v. The District Collector

2017-12-07Honourable Mr Justice R. Mahadevan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.12.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P(MD)No.22431 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.18748 of 2017 N.Arimuthu ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector, Tirunelveli.

Tirunelveli District.

2. The Tahsildhar, Radhapuram Taluk, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District.

3. The Executive Engineer, Chittar Basin Division, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.

4. The Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Irrigation, Nanguneri, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

5. The Assistant Engineer, PWD Irrigation, Vallioor, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take immediate steps for the free passage of water permanently without giving chance for any obstructions or closure by anybody else in the cement irrigation channel (Kaal) running from sluice No.1 of Valliyoor Periyakulam tank, but enabling me to do cultivation in his land in Survey No.1419/1, 2 and 1439/3 at Vadakku Valliyoor Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 13.11.2017.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.R.Anbarasu For Respondents : Mr.M.Alagathevan Special Government Pleader

ORDER

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

2. Mr.M.Alagathevan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.

3. The petitioner, who is an agriculturalist, is before this Court and according to him, he depends on the water released from Sluice No.1 of Valliyoor Periyakulam tank for his agricultural activities and his contention is that some anti-social elements are blocking the said Sluice, thereby, resisting the flow of water to his land. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 13.11.2017, before the respondents and because of their inaction, the present petition came to be filed.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order of this Court, in the case of Ramasamy Nadar Vs. District Collector and others [W.P(MD)No.20593 of 2014 dated 09.06.2015], having similar facts, wherein, this Court had directed the authorities to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation. The learned Counsel further submitted that it would suffice, if a similar direction is issued to the authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner, on merits.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to submit a copy of the representation dated 13.11.2017, along with a copy of this order and the order in W.P(MD)No.20593 of 2014 dated 09.06.2015, before the respondents, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such filing, the respondents 1 to 3 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all the other interested parties, if any, within a period of six weeks, thereafter.

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar