Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 34 (MAD)

Boopathy v. District Collector, Tiruppur

2014-01-06

M.VENUGOPAL

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has preferred the present Writ of Mandamus praying for issuance of order in directing the first respondent to consider his representation dated 05.11.2012 and to conduct an enquiry, after obtaining report from the second respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, he is the Chairman of Sree Rajamahalakshmi Trust at No.43A, Unniyur Post, Thottiyam Taluk, Trichy District. He along with two others, formed the above Trust, with an intention to construct a temple for Sri Maha Kaliamman at Nanjaithalaiyur Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District. The Trust purchased a land in S.No.155 in the above mentioned Village measuring an extent of 0.25 cents. The petitioner had also started construction of the temple in the said Village. While so, some of the villagers are creating problem for construction of the temple by him in the said place. Therefore, the petitioner requested the respondents to take action in accordance with law. Since no action has been taken so far, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. 3. In view of the fact that the petitioner has sent a detailed representation dated 5.11.2012 to the second respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur District and the same has not been considered till date, this Court, in the interest of Equity and Fair Play and even as a matter of prudence, directs the second respondent/ Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur District, to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 05.11.2012 within a period of six weeks. Considering the fact that the petitioner's representation is dated 5.11.2012, this Court directs the petitioner to submit a copy of the said representation dated 5.11.2012 afresh to the second respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur District within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order. Upon receipt of the said representation from the petitioner, the second respondent is directed to pass a reasoned speaking order in accordance with law, within the time frame as determined by this Court and as stated supra (of-course after providing opportunity to the petitioner in the manner known to law). 4. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.