- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
J.RAJA RAM v. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
W.P. No.24995 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.07.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
W.P.No.24995 of 2025
J.Raja Ram
S/o.Jayaraman
No.144, Gandhi Salai
No.74, Pulipakkam Village,
Chengalpattu Taluk - 603002
Chengalpattu District.
Petitioner
Vs
1.The Chief Engineer
National Highways Authority of India, NHAI, 3rd Floor,
No.76, Sardar Patel Road,
Guindy, Chennai - 600 032
2.The Regional Officer
National Highways Authority of India, NHAI, 5th Floor CMRL Building,
Poonamallee High Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai - 600 107
Page 1 of 6
3.The Project Director National Highways Authority of India, NHAI, No.41/8A, 2/285, 2nd Floor, Velchery Tambaram Main Road, Santhosapuram, Medavakkam
Chennai - 600 073
4.V.M.K. Gopal
S/o V.M. Kannappan,
No.16, 6th Cross Street,
Marakayar Nagar, Neelangarai, Chennai - 600 041
5.K.Ramakrishnan
Proprietor of K. Ramakrishnan Motors Private Ltd,
No.127A, Main Road,
Thalvapalayam, Karur - 639 113 Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to take action to remove the encroachment made by the fourth and fifth respondents upon a piece of National Highways-45 in Survey No. 82 at Pulipakkam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk and District. For Petitioner: Mr.G.Mageshkumar
For Respondents: Mrs.S.R.Sumathy,
Standing Counsel
for respondent Nos.1 to 3
Page 2 of 6
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard Mr.G.Mageshkumar, learned counsel for petitioner and, on advance copy, Mrs.S.R.Sumathy, learned Standing Counsel, appears on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. The grievance as ventilated through this public interest litigation is that though respondent No.1 has already directed respondent No.2 to take appropriate proceedings for removal of encroachment made by respondent Nos.4 and 5, till date the encroachment has not been removed. He would submit that the information received under the Right to Information Act clearly discloses that it is a case of encroachment.
3. From the communication dated 13.5.2025 placed on record, it is reflected that respondent No.1 has forwarded the complaint regarding encroachment to the second respondent for taking necessary action. The second respondent, therefore, is required to conclude the proceedings by making necessary enquiry to verify the
Page 3 of 6
complaint regarding encroachment and remove the encroachment if found.
4. Since the petition itself was filed without waiting for a reasonable period, we are not inclined to proceed further at this stage, but to dispose of the petition with a direction to the second respondent or any such authority as may be entrusted by the second respondent to complete the enquiry and take action one way or the other within an outer limit of four months. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR ,J)
29.07.2025
Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sasi
Page 4 of 6
To:
1.The Chief Engineer National Highways Authority of India, NHAI, 3rd Floor,
No.76, Sardar Patel Road,
Guindy, Chennai - 600 032
2.The Regional Officer
National Highways Authority of India, NHAI, 5th Floor CMRL Building, Poonamallee High Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai - 600 107 3.The Project Director
National Highways Authority of India, NHAI, No.41/8A, 2/285, 2nd Floor, Velchery Tambaram Main Road, Santhosapuram, Medavakkam
Chennai - 600 073
Page 5 of 6
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR ,J.
(sasi)
W.P.No.24995 of 2025
29.07.2025
Page 6 of 6
Alert