A Single Judge Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising of Justice N Anand Venkatesh in the case of R. Palsamy v. The District Collector Ors. had observed that the Petitioner should be granted the relief which he sought by making a fresh representation. The Respondent should take note of that representation and decide the case on its own merits and in accordance with the law.
“There shall be a direction to the third respondent to act upon the recommendation made by the fourth respondent through letter dated 30.07.2018 and take a decision regarding extension of time for the completion of the work by the petitioner, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on its own merits and in accordance with law.”
Background of the Case
In this case, the Petitioner named R.Palsamy had submitted the tender which was called for cutting down the Seemakaruvelam Trees in Idaikattur revenue village. Because of the highest bid, the petitioner got the tender and started work on it. Substantially, the petitioner did not finish the work on time due to the monsoon rains and the water stagnation in the concerned water tank and submitted an application before the Respondent for an extension of time. The Tahsildar (Respondent 4) had made a submission in favor of the petition to extend the time but the Revenue Divisional Officer (Respondent 3) failed to comply with the order.
Therefore, this Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to extend the lease period for the cutting down of Seema Karuvelam Trees in S.No.92 of the Idaikattoor Village in Sivagangai District as per the proceedings of the 4th respondent in Na.Ka.No.A5/1443/2018 dated 30.07.2018 and by the representation of the petitioner dated 22.02.2021.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Court looked into the submission of the petitioner before Respondent 4 who granted the extension of time but Respondent 3 did not act as per the recommendation made by Respondent 4. Another representation was made before Respondent 4 on 22.02.2021 and this was also not acted upon.
It was also noted by the Court that Respondent 3 had extended the time limit for the completion of the work for the similarly placed persons. The Petitioner had also submitted relevant documents pertaining to this claim.
The Court perused all the facts and held that Respondent 3 should act in accordance with the order passed by Respondent 4 and take a decision regarding extension of time for the completion of the work by the petitioner, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on its own merits and in accordance with the law.
Hence, the Court disposed of the petition without imposing any cost on it and the petitioner was directed to make a fresh representation to the third respondent along with all the relevant documents along with a copy of this order.
Case Details
Case: - W.P.(MD)No.7830 of 2021
Petitioner: - R.Palsamy
Respondent: - The District Collector& Ors
Counsel for Petitioner: - Mr.S.Ramsundar Vijayaraj
Counsel for Respondent: - Mr. P.Mahendran
Judge: Justice N Anand Venkatesh
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :
Picture Source :
