Madras High Court
T.R.G.Mohan @ Mohandass vs The District Collector on 8 June, 2015
Author: R.Mahadevan
Bench: R.Mahadevan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.06.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
W.P(MD)No.6812 of 2015
T.R.G.Mohan @ Mohandass ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Commissioner,
Rameswaram Municipality,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Rameswaram Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District.
4.Jeya
5.Ravi
6.Boopathy ... Respondents
PRAYER
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to
remove the encroachment made by the respondents 4 to 6 in Kenthamana
Parvatham (Ramar Patham) Salai, Rameswaram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
!For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jegadeeswaran
For Respondents : Mr.S.Chandrasekar
Govt. Advocate for R.1 & R.3
Mr.M.Kannan for R.2
No appearance for R.4 to R.6
:ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the encroachment made by the respondents 4 to 6 in Kenthamana Parvatham (Ramar Patham) Salai, Rameswaram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents 4 to 6 have erected huts in front of the property of the petitioner in the above said Kenthamana Parvatham (Ramar Patham) Salai and thereby, encroached the same which is causing hindrance to the devotees of the said temple. In this regard, the petitioner has also made a representation dated 11.04.2015 to the second respondent seeking appropriate action, however, the same has not been considered so far and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Now, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that it would be suffice, if the representation of the petitioner dated 11.04.2015, is disposed of by the second respondent as per law.
4. Heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 and the learned Counsel for the second respondent. Though notice has been served on the respondents 4 to 6 and their names appeared in the cause list, none appeared either in person or through Counsel.
5. Considering the limited scope of the relief sought for, this Court, without going into the merits of the petitioner's claim, directs the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.04.2015 and pass appropriate orders on its own merit and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondents 4 to 6 and to all other interested parties, if any, and initiate appropriate action as per law, 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.
To
1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Commissioner, Rameswaram Municipality, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Tahsildar, Rameswaram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.