Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 4240 (MAD)

K. Rajendran, Nagai v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Tamilnadu, Chennai

2013-12-19

V.DHANAPALAN

body2013
Judgment 1. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. The petitioner, an Advocate, has come before this Court with a prayer to direct the respondents to lay Mayiladuthurai Bye-pass Road Phase I and also Mayiladuthurai to Vaitheeswarankoil Bye-pass Road Phase II immediately. 3. According to the petitioner, he is having lands situated in and around Mayiladuthurai Bye-Pass Road; the value of his property is adversely affected due to non-implementation of the Scheme of Bye-Pass Road proposed in the year 2006 itself for the lethargic attitude of the respondents; he submitted a representation to the respondents on 1.8.2013 for immediate action; since the same was not acted upon, a reminder was also sent thereafter in order to safeguard the interest of his own as well as the general public who were affected due to non-implementation of the project; he, being a lawyer and having concern about the development of the villages in and around the Bye-Pass Road, as the lands of the villagers were acquired for a public purpose, submitted the representation to the authorities for implementation of the project and any delay in executing the project would cause State Exchequer heavily and also the value of the property be adversely affected. 4. The further case of the petitioner is that Mayiladuthurai is a town having traditional and historical value situated in the banks of Cauveri river; it has 125 year old Railway junction connecting Tiruvarur, Chennai, Madurai and Kovai; Saints Nandanar and Gnanasambandar were born in the said town; famous temples of Vaitheeswarankoil, Sooriyanar temple, Sirkali Astami temple, Thirukkadiyur temple etc. 4. The further case of the petitioner is that Mayiladuthurai is a town having traditional and historical value situated in the banks of Cauveri river; it has 125 year old Railway junction connecting Tiruvarur, Chennai, Madurai and Kovai; Saints Nandanar and Gnanasambandar were born in the said town; famous temples of Vaitheeswarankoil, Sooriyanar temple, Sirkali Astami temple, Thirukkadiyur temple etc. are situated in Mayiladuthurai area and also it is a middle town of all Navagraha temples; the State Highway SH 64 and ECR connect Mayiladuthurai with Chennai covering a total distance of 273 Km.; in the west of Mayiladuthurai, major town Kumbakonam is situated and in the south Tiruvarur and in the east Karaikal are situated; Mayiladuthurai town and peripheral areas are groaning under heavy traffic and human life has become difficult; due to non-execution of the Bye-pass Road project, traffic became congested and he is unable to reach his office which is 5 k.m. away and also the value of the property belonging to him has been reduced; therefore, he is one of the persons aggrieved due to non-execution of the project; it is everybody's concern that the stretch of the road is full of 56 hairpin bends and everyone feels that the 13 k.m. curvy road travel is more tedious than that of the 260 k.m. other stretch of road from Mayiladuthurai to Chennai; from the British period, nobody initiated steps to straighten the road bends by a straight road with proper alignment between Mayiladuthurai and Vaitheeswarankoil stretch; due to innumerable curves in the stretch, several road accidents occur, resulting in loss of hundred of lives every year; if the said bends are removed, a straight road can be laid by way of New Bye-Pass Road and, therefore, he brought to the notice of the authorities about the Scheme brought in 2006, which was under proposal and consideration without any further fund allotment. 5. 5. The petitioner would also state that a sum of Rs.2 crores is allotted for the Bye-Pass Road in January 2011, but no work has been done; further progress in the execution of the project is more important; to a query by one Mr.Balaji Babu of Mayiladuthurai on 16.9.2011 under Right To Information Act asking for details of the project and fund allotment for the same, the authorities have not supplied any information and a statutory appeal was also made; thereafter, on 25.10.2011, the authorities gave an evasive information that a sum of Rs.2 crore and six lakhs was allotted for Bye Pass Road project, indicating that work would be taken up only stage by stage and, under the circumstances, he is before this Court for the relief stated supra. 6. On the above pleadings of the petitioner, Mr.V.Jayaprakashnarayanan, learned Special Government Pleader, who took notice for the respondents, submits that the first respondent is not at all concerned with the grievance of the petitioner and, therefore, it is not for the first respondent to look into the matter but for other respondents. The learned Special Government Pleader would also submit that the issue involved herein is of public interest and, as such, the other respondents, excepting the first respondent, may be directed to do the needful within a reasonable time limit. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner admitting that the first respondent is only a formal party submits that the petitioner is not seeking any direction against him and it is enough if a direction is given to the other respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 1.8.2013. 8. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case and considering that the pilgrims from all over the world come to Mayiladuthurai to visit various temples, cultural and historical places located in and around Mayiladuthurai, coupled with the fact that the proposed Bye-Pass Road is en route for the famous Velankanni temple, this Court is of the considered view that the matter requires prompt and speedy action and, accordingly, the respondents 2 to 5 are directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner put forth by him in his representation, dated 1.8.2013, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is expected that the authorities concerned shall take note of the particulars which the petitioner brought in to their notice for implementation of the project. 9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.