1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Petition (MD) No.11457 of 2011 V.L.Krishnamoorthy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai. 3.The Tahsildhar, Madurai South, Madurai. 4.S.Sekar ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the 2nd respondent to remove the encroachment of the 4th respondent in Kilakku Street particularly in S.No.70/1 (T.S.No.99/2) of Ponmeni Village, Madurai South within a stipulated time. For petitioner .. Mr.R.Ramasamy For respondents 1 & 3 .. Mr.R.Anandaraj, Government Advocate For 2nd respondent .. Mr.M.Ravishankar ORDER (Order of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, J.) The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of a direction to the second respondent to remove the encroachment of the 4th respondent in Kilakku Street, particularly in S.No.70/1 (T.S.No.99/2) of Ponmeni Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai within a stipulated time. 2.By mutual consent of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Anandaraj, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 & 3 and Mr.M.Ravishankar, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing, at the admission stage itself. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has come forward with this petition by way of a public interest litigation. It is contended that the fourth respondent has encroached the public road from his private property situated adjacent to the road and the petitioner has given several representations to the second respondent, but till date no action has been taken and as such, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.Though the petitioner has come forward with a larger prayer, it is now submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would be satisfied, if a direction is given to the second respondent to dispose of his representations dated 10.03.2011 and 05.08.2011 within a time frame. 5.Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first and third respondents and the learned standing counsel for the second respondent on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the limited prayer now made before this Court, this Court is of the view that no notice is necessary on the fourth respondent. 6.Considering the limited prayer made before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, without going into the merits of the representations of the petitioner dated 10.03.2011 and 05.08.2011, given to the second respondent and also without expressing any view on the said representations, inclined to direct the second respondent herein to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 10.03.2011 and 05.08.2011, after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as to the fourth respondent herein by sending a notice and thereafter, to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. SD/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To: 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai. 3.The Tahsildhar, Madurai South, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr.R.Ramasamy, Advocate, SR.No.35045 +1 CC to Mr.M.Ravishankar, Advocate, SR.No.35148 +1 CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No.35007 gcg Order in W.P.(MD)No.11457 of 2011 10.10.2011 TR : 11.10.2011 : 2p/7c : IT https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/