K.Raj Kumar vs The Principal Secretary on 9 November, 2020
22. This Court in [A. Velusamy vs. District Collector, Coimbatore
and Ors., reported in (2010) 3 CTC 57] has held as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.59 seconds)Documents citing
A.Velusamy vs The District Collector on 6 April, 2010
M. Devaraj vs The District Collector on 21 April, 2015
In support of his submissions, he has also taken reliance from the order of this Court in the case of A. Velusamy vs. The District Collector, Coimbatore reported in 2010 (3) CTC 57, and would further submit that the question of passing an order of injunction would apply if he is going to put up construction within 300 mts., from the quarrying area comes within the inhabited site as found in the explanation to Rule 36 (1-A) (a), (b) and (c) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Therefore, when the petitioners have miserably failed to show before this Court or before the respondents 1 to 4, that the area in question wherein the petitioners have undertaken the quarrying operation is an inhabited site, the prayer sought for in the present writ petition is not maintainable.
Velusamy vs The District Collector on 6 July, 2021
3. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case
2/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.2919 of 2021
Velusamy v. The District Collector
and without going into the merits of the case, there shall be a direction to the
first respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner on
03.02.2020 and deal with the same on its own merits and in accordance with
law and shall convey the final decision to the petitioner within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
1