Madras High CourtWP(MD)/8333/2013disposed of

V. Santhanam, v. The Executive Officer

2017-11-30Honourable Mr Justice R. Mahadevan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.11.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P.(MD).No.8333 of 2013 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2013 V.Santhanam .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Executive Officer, Palayam Town Panchayat, Vedansandoor Taluk, Dindigul District.

2.The President, Palayam Town Panchayat, Palayam, Vedasandoor Taluk, Dindigul District.

.. Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to immediately remove the bore well installed near petitioner bore well in Ooru Manthai, at Palayam Village, Vedasandoor Taluk, Dindigul District.

For Petitioner :Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar For 1st Respondent :Mr.M.Rajarajan For 2nd Respondent :No appearance

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed, seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to immediately remove the bore well installed near petitioner bore well in Ooru Manthai, at Palayam Village, Vedasandoor Taluk, Dindigul District. 2.Heard both sides.

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

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, alleging that the second respondent had dug a bore well near to his bore well, he had sent a representation to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

respondents, to remove the same. Since, the representation is kept pending, without any action the petitioner is before this Court.

5. When the matter is taken up hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would be suffice, if the representation of the petitioner dated 02.04.2013 is disposed of, by the respondent, as per law, within a stipulated time limit. 6.

It is seen that the petitioner has submitted his representation seeking to remove the bore well in the year 2013 and it is not known whether such a claim still subsists due to passage of time.

7. Under such circumstances and also considering the limited scope of the relief sought for, this Court, without going into the merits of the petitioner's claim, directs the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 02.04.2013 and pass appropriate orders, if not already passed, on its own merit and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as all the interested parties, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar TO 1.The Executive Officer, Palayam Town Panchayat, Vedansandoor Taluk, Dindigul District.

2.The President, Palayam Town Panchayat, Palayam, Vedasandoor Taluk, Dindigul District.

+1cc to Mr.G.GOMATHI SANKAR Advocate in SR. No. 90428 DSK JS/MR.KKR/SAR.1/21.12.2017/2P-4C W.P.(MD).No.8333 of 2013 30.11.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/