M. Balamurugan vs. The Prinicipal Secretary
Facts
Two writ petitions were filed by M. Balamurugan and G. Kannan seeking a writ of mandamus. The petitioners requested the court to direct the respondents, various officials from the Highways Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu, to provide adequate access on the western side of the road over bridge at Madurai-Kanyakumari GST Road. Specifically, M. Balamurugan sought access near Tiruparankundram in lieu of L.C. 371, and G. Kannan sought access near Palanganatham in lieu of L.C. 366, to reach the public road. The petitions were filed in 2015. When the matters were taken up for hearing on February 27, 2023, there was no representation for the petitioners.
Held
The Court held that the prayer sought for in the writ petitions had become infructuous. This decision was based on the information provided by the respondents, stating that a service road had been provided as early as 2016 and was being utilized by the public. Consequently, the Court found no further adjudication to be necessary. The reasoning was that the original grievance of the petitioners, which was the lack of adequate access, had been addressed by the subsequent action of providing a service road. Therefore, the purpose of the writ petitions was no longer extant. The Court closed the writ petitions and consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the prayer sought for in the writ petitions has become infructuous due to subsequent events, specifically the provision of a service road. The petitioner's side did not present any arguments as there was no appearance. The respondents, through the learned Additional Government Pleader, contended that a service road had already been provided and was being used by the public since 2016. Based on this information, the respondents argued that the relief sought by the petitioners in their writ petitions had become infructuous, and therefore, no further adjudication was required. The respondents relied on instructions received from the Assistant Divisional Engineer attached to the office of the fifth respondent.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
W.P.(MD)Nos.6889 & 6747 of 2015 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :27.02.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU W.P.(MD)Nos.6889 & 6747 of 2015 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 to 3 & 1 to 3 of 2015 W.P.(MD).No.6889 of 2015 M.Balamurugan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Principal Secretary, Highways & Minor Ports Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Chief Engineer (General), Highways Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai. 3.The Superintendent Engineer, NABAARD & Village Roads, Highways Department Government of Tamilnadu, Madurai. 4.The Superintending Engineer (Scheme) Highways Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Madurai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.6889 & 6747 of 2015 5.The Divisional Engineer (Construction) Highways Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Madurai. ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to provide adequate access to the petitioner on the western side of the road over bridge at Madurai-Kanyakumari GST Road near Ti
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.