1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:17.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Petition (MD)No.1575 of 2011 T.Saravana Perumal :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 2.The Commissioner, Sivakasi Municipality, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District. :Respondents Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to take effective steps to remove the encroachment in Town Survey No.58m, Block No.15, Survey Ward-A in Sivakasi Municipality, Virudhunagar District, within a stipulated time. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jothi Basu For Respondent-1 : Mr.K.Mahendran,Spl.Govt.Pleader. For Respondent-2 : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar ORDER [Order of the Court was made BY K.N.BASHA, J] The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent to take effective steps to remove the encroachment in Town Survey No.58m, Block No.15, Survey Ward-A in Sivakasi Municipality, Virudhunagar District, within a stipulated time. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already given representations, one on 18.10.2010 and another on 29.12.2010, to the 2nd respondent pointing out the encroachment and seeking for the relief of removal of such encroachment, but till date no action was taken by the 2nd respondent and hence the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court with this petition with the aforesaid prayer. 3.Per contra, Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent Municipality, on instruction, would submit that the encroachment complained by the petitioner has already been removed by the 2nd respondent Municipality. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.We have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel on either side and perused the affidavit filed in support of the petitioner as well the other materials available on record. 5.It is the categorical submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent Municipality that the alleged encroachment, namely name boards, was already removed. However, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has no instruction on this aspect. Considering the categorical submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent Municipality and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, without going into the merits of the representations of the petitioner and without expressing any view on such representations, this Court is constrained to direct the 2nd respondent, in the event of the alleged encroachment has not yet been removed, to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 18.10.2010 and 29.12.2010, by affording an opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the alleged encroacher and other relevant parties and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. It is made clear the said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6.With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Assistant Registrar / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 2.The Commissioner, Sivakasi Municipality, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District. +1CC to Mr.N.Dilipkumar, Advocate. SR.No.40052. Gb RP/02.12.2011/2P/4C. ORDER IN WP(MD)No.1575 of 2011 Dated:17.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/