Sonaimuthu. R v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.07.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI R.Sonaimuthu ... Petitioner versus

1. The District Collector, Office of the District Collector,

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,

3. The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Manamadurai, ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.05.2023 and to extent the license period for cutting down of 1/5

Seemakaruvelam trees in S.No.86 and 87 of Periya Kanmoi and Chinna Kanmoi of Rajakambeeram Village of Manamadurai Taluk, For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayraj For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan, Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The petitioner herein is a Contractor. In the month of February 2018, he was awarded with a contract for cutting and removal of Seemai Karuvelam Trees standing in the Periya Kanmoi and Chinna Kanmoi of Rajakambeeram Village of Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District, with a condition that the work should be completed on or before 31.08.2018. According to the petitioner, since there was a water stagnant in the tank of Periya Kanmoi and Chinna Kanmoi and due to the pandemic situation, he was not able to complete the work within the stipulated time. Therefore, he submitted a representation to the 2/5

respondents dated 24.05.2023 seeking extension of time for removal of Seemakaruvelam trees. Since the said representation has not been considered by the respondents, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. The petitioner was awarded with a contract for cutting and removal of Seemai Karuvelam Trees in the year 2018 itself and he was expected to complete the work on or before 31.08.2018. But, he has not completed the work within the stipulated time. According to the petitioner, due to water stagnation and pandemic situation, the contract work could not be completed. But, he has chosen to make a representation for extension of time to complete the contract work, only in the month of May 2023, that too after 4 1⁄2 years. Since the said representation has not been considered by the respondents, he has filed this writ petition.

3. Considering the failure on the part of the petitioner in completing the contract work within the stipulated time and that the 3/5

representation for extension of contact work was not in time, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

03.07.2023 ogy NCC : Yes / No.

Index : Yes / No.

Internet : Yes / No.

To

1. The District Collector, Office of the District Collector,

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,

3. The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Manamadurai, 4/5

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

ogy 03.07.2023 5/5