Madras High CourtWP(MD)/20844/2016disposed of

V.Gopalakrishnan v. The Assistant Director

2017-09-05Honourable Mr Justice K.K. Sasidharan,Honourable Mr Justice G.R.Swaminathan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.09.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.20844 of 2016 V.Gopalakrishnan : Petitioner Vs.

1. The Assistant Director, Panchayat Branch, Trichy District Collectorate Complex, Trichy-620001.

2. The Commissioner, Manikandam Panchayat Union, Manikandam, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District.

3. The Superintending Engineer, Trichy Electricity Distribution Circle/Metro, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TANGEDCO), Mannarpuram, Trichy-620020.

4. The Deputy Director, Trichy Circle, Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescure Services Department, Near Trichy District Court Complex, Trichy-620020.

5. The Local Planning Authority, Tiruchirappalli Local planning Authority, Trichy, Trichy District.

6.Selvaraj : Respondents (R5 and R6) are impleaded vide Court Order dated 23.02.2017 in W.M.P.(MD).No.15886 of 2016) PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents one to four to take appropriate and necessary actions based on the representations of the petitioner dated 11.08.2016

within a stipulated time and to strictly adhere to the original master plan.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Hariharan For R.1 & R.4 : Mr.M.Govindan Special Government Pleader For Respondent No.2 : Mr.Aayiram K.selvakumar For Respondent No.3 : Mrs.Rajeswari For Mr.S.M.S.Johny Basha For Respondent No.6 : Mr.R.Murali For Respondent No.5 : No Appearance *********

O R D E R

*********** [Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.] This writ petition has been filed by the President of Vennila Livings Apartment in Trichirappalli District. 2.The grievance of the petitioner is that the car parking area has ben illegally converted by the promoter of the apartment. They, therefore, submitted representation to the Local Body and other authorities for taking action. Since there was no response, the present writ petition came to be filed.

3.This Court made it clear that the second respondent cannot remain a mute spectator in the matter. Thereupon action was taken and the second respondent demolished the illegal constructions put up by the sixth respondent herein. If the petitioner is still having any grievance against the promoter, he is at liberty to move the concerned forum for ventilating his grievance. But it is made clear that the area shown as car park will have to be maintained as such. It is the duty of the Local Body to ensure that there is no change of user. 4.With these observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To