- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
R.Ganesan v. The Union of India
W.P.(MD) No.17354 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD)No.17354 of 2024 and
W.M.P.(MD)No.14916 of 2024 R.Ganesan ... Petitioner -Vs-
1.The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India,
New Delhi.
2.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Village and Town Panchayat, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
3.The Director of Town Panchayat, Government of Tamil Nadu,
7th and 8th Floor,
Urban Administrative Office Campus, Chennai - 28.
Page 1 of 6
4.The District Collector, Kokkirakulam,
Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli - 9.
5.The Superintending Engineer, MRC Nagar,
Chennai - 28.
6.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Director of Town Panchayat, 7th and 8th Floor,
Urban Administrative Office Campus, Chennai - 28.
7.The Executive Officer,
Mukkoodal Town Panchayat, Tirunelveli District.
8.The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
9.Periyasamy Pandian.M ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 2 to 4 and 7 to cancel the work order dated 19.05.2023 in R.O.C.No.658 of 2022 issued by the 7threspondent under AMRUT 2.0 scheme to the 9threspondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Suresh Kumar
For R1 : Mr.K.Govindarajan
Deputy Solicitor General of India
For R2 to R8 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar
Government Pleader
Page 2 of 6
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.]
This writ petition is filed to direct the respondents 2 to 7 to cancel the work order issued to the ninth respondent.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the ninth respondent became the successful bidder in the Government contract for laying the pipeline under AMRUT 2.0 scheme. He has dug trenches on the road side for laying pipeline. However, the same was not closed. The trenches dug by the ninth respondent is causing lot of inconvenience to the public. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents 2 to 7 to take necessary action against the ninth respondent. Since the same was not considered, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2.The learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submits that laying of pipeline work has already been completed and now the trenches were also closed.
Page 3 of 6
3.Recording the above submission of the learned Government Pleader, nothing remains to be considered further in this matter. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[J.N.B., J.] & [S.S.Y., J.]
28.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No ta
To
1.The Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi. 2.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Village and Town Panchayat, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai - 9. 3.The Director of Town Panchayat, Government of Tamil Nadu,
7th and 8th Floor,
Urban Administrative Office Campus, Chennai - 28.
4.The District Collector,
Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli District,
Page 4 of 6
Tirunelveli - 9. 5.The Superintending Engineer, MRC Nagar,
Chennai - 28.
6.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Director of Town Panchayat, 7th and 8th Floor,
Urban Administrative Office Campus, Chennai - 28.
7.The Executive Officer,
Mukkoodal Town Panchayat, Tirunelveli District.
8.The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
Page 5 of 6
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
S.SRIMATHY , J.
ta W.P.(MD)No.17354 of 2024
28.02.2025
Page 6 of 6
Alert