Madurai District Deivendrakula v. Th State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.01.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN W.P(MD)No.24980 of 2016 Madurai District Deivendrakula Velalar Uravinmurai Sangam rep. by its President C.Selvakumar, 6A, North Street, Managiri, Madurai - 625 020.
.. Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Chief Secretary, Fort Saint George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Fort Saint George, Chennai - 600 009.
.. 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 first respondent to issue necessary direction to the second respondent to re-consider the view of fixation of Kamuthi as Head Quarter of the proposal of establishing the new Kamuthi District based on the petitioner's representation dated 08.12.2016 made to the first respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan, Special Government Pleader.
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 to establish Kamuthi as Headquarter of the proposed new Kamuthi District on the basis of representation dated 08.12.2016 given to the first respondent, by way of issuing a writ of mandamus. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2.It is averred in the petition that the petitioner is a resident of Managiri, Madurai. Further it is averred in the petition that there is a proposal to form a new district. Under the said circumstances, a representation dated 08.12.2016 has been given to the first respondent to fix Kamuthi as Headquarter. But the same has not been considered and therefore the present writ petition has been filed for getting the relief sought therein. 3.Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader, has taken notice for the respondents.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended to the effect that a news has been published in Dinathanthi newspaper wherein it is stated that a new district by name Kamuthi is going to be formed and under the said circumstances a representation dated 08.12.2016 has been sent to the first respondent, but the first respondent has not at all considered the same.
5.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has contended to the effect that there is no proposal for forming a new district by way of bifurcating the existing Ramanathapuram District and therefore the relief sought in the writ petition cannot be granted.
6.Considering the divergent submissions made on either side and also considering that already a representation has been sent to the first respondent, this Court is of the view to give the following direction.
7.In fine, this writ petition is allowed in part without costs and the second respondent is directed to consider the representation dated 08.12.2016 alleged to have been given by the petitioner and pass necessary order within a period of two months. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-I) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort Saint George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue,Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort Saint George, Chennai - 600 009.
+1 CC to Mr.K.KANNAN, Advocate, SR No.89.
ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.24980 of 2016 smn 02.01.2017 SH:10.01.2017:2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/