Madras High Court
P.Sankar vs State Rep.By on 11 August, 2014
Author: B.Rajendran
Bench: B.Rajendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.08.2014 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN Writ Petition No.9093 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 P.Sankar ... Petitioner -vs.- 1. State rep.by The District Collector Namakkal District. 2. The Assistant Director of Panchayat District Collector Office Namakkal District. 3. The Block Development Officer Kabilakurichi Village Panchayat Kabilarmalai Post Paramathi Vellore Taluk Namakkal District. 4. The Panchayat President Kabilakurichi Village Panchayat Kabilarmalai Post Paramathi Vellore Taluk Namakkal District. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the fourth respondent dated 29.08.2012; to quash the same and consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.03.2014 within a stipulated period to be fixed by this Court. For petitioner ... Mr.M.K.Bhoopathy Rajan For respondents ... Mr.N.Sakthivel Government Advocate for RR1 to 3 R4-No appearance ORDER
The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the fourth respondent dated 29.08.2012 and for a direction to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.03.2014 within a stipulated period to be fixed by this Court.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the water pipeline of his residence was unfortunately disconnected by the fourth respondent under the wrong notion that the water is being tapped by the petitioner straightaway from the main line; whereas according to the petitioner, it has been taken only from the tank situated in the house after receiving from the main line. Hence, he would pray for a direction to the respondents to restore the water connection. It is the further case of the petitioner that inspite of the recommendation orders from the higher authorities, the same has not been considered by the fourth respondent and this has been done only due to personal vendetta against the petitioner owing to election dispute.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would only contend that the petitioner would be satisfied, if a direction is given to the respondents to consider his representation dated 14.03.2014 for restoring the water connection pursuant to the order passed by the third respondent dated 10.09.2012.
4. Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 would submit that they will consider the representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within the time stipulated by this Court.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. Though notice has been served on the fourth respondent and its name also printed in the cause list none appeared today.
7. Taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for by the petitioner and the recommendation of the Block Development Officer by his proceedings dated 10.09.2012 directing the fourth respondent to effect water service connection, the respondents shall consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and pass orders on the same in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.08.2014 vj2 Index : Yes/No To
1. The District Collector Namakkal District.
2. The Assistant Director of Panchayat District Collector Office Namakkal District.
3. The Block Development Officer Kabilakurichi Village Panchayat Kabilarmalai Post Paramathi Vellore Taluk Namakkal District.
B.RAJENDRAN,J., vj2 W.P.No.9093 of 2014 11.08.2014