Madras High Court
S.Jayabalan vs The District Collector on 23 September, 2020
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan, P.Rajamanickam
W.P.(MD) No.3612 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.09.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM
W.P.(MD)No.3612 of 2019
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2826 and 11102 of 2019
S.Jayabalan ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The District Collector,
Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
2.The Special Officer/The Assistant Director,
Town Panchayats,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Block Development Officer,
Pudhukudi Panchayat Union,
Pudhukudi, Thoothukudi District.
4.The Executive Officer,
Eral-Selection Grade Town Panchayat,
Eral, Thoothukudi District.
5.Palraj ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to
issue a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to ensure that
the Paver Block pathway are laid in the Eral Town after removing the
pre-existing cement roads if any already existing in Eral Town & Taluk,
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
W.P.(MD) No.3612 of 2019
Tuticorin District by considering the representations of the petitioner
dated 15.06.2018, 20.02.2018 and 04.02.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu
For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Muthugeethaian
Special Government Pleader
For R4 : Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian
For R5 : Mr.R.Karunanidhi
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,] The writ petition styled as Public Interest Litigation, is filed by a resident of Melatheru Eral Town and Taluk, Thoothukudi District and according to him in Pudhukudi 8th street a policy decision has been taken to scrap the existing road and lay paver block and in respect of Thiru Valudhi Nagar, 8th street also it was sought to be done.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the fifth respondent, who is entrusted with the contract, merely scrapped the existing road and straight away started laying interlocking paver block and on account of the non-compliance of the relevant formalities/operating proceedings, it would serve no purpose and http://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 W.P.(MD) No.3612 of 2019 representations, dated 15.06.2018, 20.02.2018, and 04.02.2019 submitted in this regard did not invoke any kind of response and therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by way of this writ petition. This writ petition was entertained and interim order has been granted. To vacate the interim order, the fourth respondent/local body has filed a petition in W.M.P.(MD)No.11102 of 2019.
3. Mr.M.Thirunavukarasu, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this court to the materials placed on record including the affidavit of the fourth respondent and would submit that paragraph No.8 of the affidavit filed in support of W.M.P.(MD)No. 11102 of 2019, procedure for laying of paver block has been indicated and therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the official respondents to see to that and prays for appropriate orders.
4. Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian, learned counsel for the fourth respondent would submit that in the light of the stand taken in paragraph No.8 of the affidavit filed in support of W.M.P.(MD)No.11120 of 2019 needful would be done and execution of work can also be monitored by the second and third respondents.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 W.P.(MD) No.3612 of 2019
5. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent would submit that on account of the subsistence of the interim order, there is a likelihood of loss to exchequer and time over also and also assures that the operating procedure as to the laying of the interlocking paver block would be strictly adhered and quality of laying of the same would also be ensured and hence, prays for vacating the interim order.
6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions made on either side and also perused the materials placed on record.
7. It is a decision of the fourth respondent to scrap the existing road and lay interlocking paver block and since it is a policy decision, it cannot be interfered with. But at the same time, the quality of laying of paver block and it's durability shall be ensured for the benefit of the public at large, especially by the local residents. It is relevant to extract paragraph No.8 of the affidavit filed in support of W.M.P.(MD)No. 11102 of 2019 hereunder:-
“8.It is submitted that moreover, the works includes the following:-
“Earth work excavation for roundation in all soils and sub soils in hard stiff clay, stiff black cotton, hard red earth, shales, murram, gravel stoney earth and earth mixed with small size boulders and to full depth as may be directed, except in hard rock, requiring blasting including shoring and shuttering and bailing out of water wherever necessary, refilling the sides of foundation with http://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 W.P.(MD) No.3612 of 2019 excavated earth or sand in layer of not more than 15 cm thick well rammed and consolidated and depositing on bank with initial lead and lift of 10m and initial lift of 2m and depositing the surplus earth within the compound in places shown by the departmental officers with initial lead and lifts, clearing and leveling the site etc., complete as per SS 20B and as directed by departmental Engineers (TNBP No.17, 23, 24)”.
8. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it is obligatory on the part of the fourth respondent to ensure that the fifth respondent, who was entrusted with the contract, lays the interlocking paver block in compliance with the above cited paragraph and overseeing operation in this regard shall also be done by the second and third respondents also. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of. Interim order granted on 18.02.2019 in this writ petition stands vacated. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[M.S.N. J.,] [P.R.M. J.,]
23.09.2020
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ta
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 W.P.(MD) No.3612 of 2019 M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., and P.RAJAMANICKAM, J., ta To
1.The District Collector, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
2.The Special Officer/The Assistant Director, Town Panchayats, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Block Development Officer, Pudhukudi Panchayat Union, Pudhukudi, Thoothukudi District.
W.P.(MD)No.3612 of 2019
23.09.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6