1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Petition (MD)No.11889 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Palaniappan, S/o.Subbapillai ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Divisional Engineer, Highways, Karur Division, Karur. 2.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways, Aravakurichi, Karur District. ... Respondents Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Ka.No.143/2011/A2, dated 12.10.2011 and quashing the same. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran For Respondents : Mr.Mr.K.Mahendran, Spl.Govt.Pleader. O R D E R [Order of the Court was made BY K.N.BASHA, J] The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking for quashing the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Ka.No.143/2011/A2, dated 12.10.2011. 2.Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notices for the respondents. By mutual consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing at the time of admission itself. 3.Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is running a small tea stall for about 30 years in Survey No.704 of Esanatham Village and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying tax. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that alleging that the petitioner is in encroachment of the said property, he was issued https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 with a show cause by the 2nd respondent, for which the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 01.08.2011 but, the same was not at all considered before passing the impugned order, dated 12.10.2011. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a Division Bench of this Court has passed an order in the earlier writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.9748 of 2011 on 26.08.2011 directing the 2nd respondent to consider the objections raised by the petitioner on 01.08.2011 but, in spite of the same, without even looking into the objections, dated 0108.2011, the impugned order has been passed directing the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment and as such, the same is liable to be set aside. 4.Heard Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader, on the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5.We have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6.The fact remains that the petitioner earlier preferred a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.9748 of 2011 and this Court has passed an order on 26.08.2011, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the objections. The relevant portion of the said is extracted hereunder. "5.Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.08.2011 passed by the second respondent stands set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent for a fresh consideration. Making it clear that while passing orders, the second respondent shall take note of the objections submitted by the petitioner dated 01.08.2011 and pass appropriate (orders) on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to say that till such orders are passed by the second respondent, status-quo, which is in existence as-on-today, shall be maintained." 7.Therefore, it is crystal clear that the Division Bench of this Court has given a clear and categorical direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the objections of the petitioner dated 01.08.2011. But, the perusal of the impugned order, dated 12.10.2011, reveals that though the 2nd respondent has mentioned the objection of the petitioner dated 01.08.2011 at Sl.No.3 under the reference column, he has not made any whisper about the explanations and the objections raised by the petitioner in his objection dated 01.08.2011 and thus without considering the same the impugned order has been passed directing the petitioner herein to remove the alleged encroachment. Therefore, it is very clear that the impugned order has not only been passed against the specific direction give by this Court as per the order dated 26.08.2011 but also the said order has been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and without considering the objection of the petitioner dated 01.08.2011 and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8.According, we set aside the impugned order dated 12.10.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent. However, the matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent herein and he is directed to decide the matter afresh, by considering the objection of the petitioner dated 01.08.2011 and by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 as well as to the relevant parties, and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that till such exercise is completed, status-quo as on date shall be maintained in respect of the property in question. 9.The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Divisional Engineer, Highways, Karur Division, Karur. 2.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways, Aravakurichi, Karur District. + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.35974 ORDER IN WP(MD)No.11889/2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 Dated:18.10.2011 gb RJ/11.11.11 3p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/