BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07/11/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P.(MD)No.2164 of 2008 Mickel Raj ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 2.The Regional Engineer, Highways Department, Madurai Road, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District. 3.The Executive Officer, Virudhunagar Municipality, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the third respondent to permit the petitioner to reinstall the telephone booth in its original place at Virudhunagar Bus stand. !For Petitioner ...Mr.V.Kannan ^For RR1 and 2 ...Mr.D.Sasikumar Government Advocate For Respondent ... No appearance No.3 :ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr.D.Sasikumar,
learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.
2. A re’sume’ of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal
of this writ petition would run thus:
The petitioner was running his telephone booth after obtaining necessary
permission from the third respondent Municipality. while so, arbitrarily and
capriciously, throuwing to winds all norms of justice and fair play, in a
highhanded manner, the third respondent all of a sudden removed his booth.
Thereupon the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.172 of 2004 before the District
Munsif Court, Virudhunagar and obtained a decree on 27.01.2005, which directs
the authority to reinstall the booth, in the place from where it was removed,
after collecting necessary fees from the petitioner. However, it is the
grievance of the petitioner that the authorities are dilly-dallying with the
matter without having any inclination to implement the Court order. Thereupon,
the petitioner filed W.P.No.6715 of 2005 before this Court and this Court
directed thus:
“Considering the said request of the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the petitioner is permitted to submit a representation to the second respondent
within a period of fifteen days from today and on receipt of the same, the
second respondent is directed to consider it and pass orders on merits in
accordance with law within a period of eight weeks thereafter”.
Even after passing of such orders, there is no positive response from the second
respondent. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Despite granting time, no counter has been filed.
4. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner could have filed
execution petition by way of executing the decree in O.S.No.172 of 2004.
Unfortunately, it was not done.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would entreat and implore by
detailing and delineating the pathetic situation, in which the petitioner is
living. Undoubtedly, the petitioner had lost his hands and he is reeling under
impecunious and penurious circumstances. In such a case, the learned counsel
for the petitioner would pray for issuing necessary direction cutting across all
technicalities.
6. This is a singularly singular case, where this Court by virtue of its
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could fittingly issue
direction as under:
The respondent is mandated to reinstall the booth, in place from where it
was removed earlier, immediately within a period of fifteen days from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order and put the petitioner in possession. The
petitioner also in the meanwhile is expected to pay necessary dues towards such
licence to the third respondent.
7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
smn/dp
To
1.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Regional Engineer,
Highways Department,
Madurai Road,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Executive Officer,
Virudhunagar Municipality,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.