M. Kalaiselvan, v. The District Collector,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.01.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN W.P(MD)No.36 of 2017 M.Kalaiselvan .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Dindigul District.

3.The Thashildhar, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

4.The Forces Agro Exports Pvt. Ltd.

rep. by its authorised person, Thathapatti, Santhaiyur Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

.. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take necessary actions by constituting the committee by considering the representation dated 28.11.2016.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Senthil Murugan For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.R.Velmurugan, Government Advocate.

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to constitute a committee on the basis of representation dated 28.11.2016 alleged to have been given by the petitioner, by way of issuing a writ of mandamus.

2.It is averred in the petition that the petitioner is a practising Advocate and also belongs to Thathapatti, Santhaiyur Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District. The fourth respondent has been running a factory for manufacturing pickles. Further it is averred in the petition that the fourth respondent has discharged chemical waters in the fields of villagers. Under the said circumstances, a representation has been given to the first respondent. But the first respondent has not taken any steps and therefore the present writ petition has been filed for getting the relief sought therein.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.Mr.R.Velmurugan, learned Government Advocate, has taken notice for the respondents 1 to 3. Considering the nature of allegation made against the fourth respondent and also considering the fact that the present writ petition has been filed on the basis of the representation alleged to have been given by the petitioner on 28.11.2016, notice need not be sent to the fourth respondent.

4.As adverted to earlier, the petitioner has given a representation on 28.11.2016 to the first respondent. But the first respondent has not taken any steps on the basis of the said representation and therefore the following direction can be issued to the first respondent.

5.In fine, this writ petition is allowed in part without costs and the first respondent viz., District Collector, Dindigul District is strictly directed to look into the representation dated 28.11.2016 and after giving proper opportunities to the petitioner and fourth respondent pass suitable order within a period of one month.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Dindigul District.

3.The Thashildhar, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

+1cc to Mr.C.Senthil Murugan,Advocate S.R.317. +1c to Special Government pleader S.R.232 smn KK/PMAM/12.01.17/2P/6C ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.36 of 2017 03.01.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/