Madras High Court
Vishnu Farmers Club vs M.Ravi on 29 January, 2021
WA.No.117 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.01.2021
CORAM :
The Hon'ble Mr.SANJIB BANERJEE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.A.No.117 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.691 of 2021
Vishnu Farmers CLub
Rep. by its President. .. Appellant
-vs-
1.M.Ravi
2.R.Senthil
3.K.Palanisamy
4.The District Collector,
Erode District, Erode 638 011.
5.The Special Officer/ Block
Development Officer, Chennimalai
Panchayat Union, Chennimalai 638 051,
Erode District. .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 12.04.2019 passed in W.P.No.4111 of 2019 on the file of
this Court.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.117 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.T.Murugamanickam
For Respondents : Mr.N.Manoharan
for RR 1 to 3
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The real dispute is between two rival groups to obtain one of the
more scarce commodities, water, which is essential for life, livelihood,
crop and livestock.
2.Though the judgment and order impugned herein is dated April
12, 2019, the matter appears to be covered by a previous order of this
Court of April 13, 2016 passed on W.P.No.38615 of 2015. It appears
that a certain project for taking the water from a particular lake to two
other lakes was sanctioned under the Scheme pertaining to the local
Lok Sabha Member of Parliament. This was initiated under the local
area development scheme for the year 2015-2016 and pertained to
divert the excess seepage LPB water from Noyyal river to
Murungatholuvu pond.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.117 of 2021
3.The Murungatholuvu village panchayat complained in the writ
petition instituted in 2015 that though the project had been planned
out by the revenue authorities and a route charted therefor, the
private respondents to that writ petition had purported to construct a
parallel pipeline alongside the road but deviating from the route as
approved by the local administration. Indeed, the order of April 13,
2016 referred to three routes indicated in a map that was before the
Court by a green line, a red line and a blue line. The order clearly
made out that it was the blue line that was the approved route and the
red line was the deviation which was sought to be brought about by
the private respondents. In the relevant order, the Court wondered
how a public project to be administered by the local administration
could be hijacked by some private individuals even though such private
individuals claimed to have expended their personal funds and having
obtained a loan from some other body.
4.The ultimate effect of the order of April 13, 2016, was that the
pipeline had to be carried to the Murungatholuvu pond as per the route
map prepared therefor by the local administration reflected by the blue
line on the map. It appears that notwithstanding such order, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.117 of 2021
project was not carried forward and the local administration faced
resistance from the private respondents to the writ petition of 2015.
5.It appears that several of the private respondents to
W.P.No.38615 of 2015 along with some of their neighbours formed a
society by the name of Vishnu Farmers Club and such body obtained
registration from the NABARD. It is such body which applied to be
impleaded in the present set of proceedings before the Court of the
first instance and the initial ground urged to excite the appellate Court
is that the writ petition was disposed of on merits without affording the
present appellant any opportunity to deal with the writ petition on the
very day on which the appellant's application for impleadment was
allowed. At first blush, however attractive the ground may sound,
there is no doubt that the appellant herein is nothing but a
conglomeration of the private respondents to W.P.No.38615 of 2015
and their close associates. There is little doubt that the appellant
herein and its members had resisted the laying of the pipeline along
the route charted out by the local administration and referred to as the
blue line in the order dated April 13, 2016. There is also little doubt
that it is because of the intransigence of the appellant and its members
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.117 of 2021
that the original writ petitioner in W.P.No.38615 of 2015, through
certain individuals, had to institute the subsequent petition in 2019 for
the completion of a project that was sanctioned under the MPLAD
scheme of 2015-2016.
6.In the facts of the case, it is completely erroneous to suggest
that the order impugned herein was passed in breach of the principles
of natural justice or that the appellant herein had not been heard or
that the appellant herein has been hard done by the judgment and
order impugned. All that has been done by the judgment and order
impugned dated April 12, 2019 is to ensure the appropriate
implementation of an order passed almost three years prior to the date
of the present impugned order by this Court. As is elementary, since it
is permissible to bring a subsequent writ petition for the
implementation of an order passed in earlier proceedings under Article
226 of the Constitution, the present action brought by the writ
petitioners must be seen as a continuation of the proceedings launched
in 2015 and the judgment and order impugned herein must be seen to
be only in continuance of the order dated April 13, 2016 as originally
passed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.117 of 2021
7.The writ petitioners in the present proceedings carried forward
the interests of the writ petitioner in the original proceedings and
complained of the respondent authorities failing to overcome the
resistance by extraneous elements to ensure that the pipeline was laid
along the approved route to complete a project that had remained
outstanding for several years. The judgment and order impugned is
the answer to such fervent plea of the writ petitioners that had been
allowed in 2016, despite the resistance of the private respondents to
such earlier petition, but which had not been given effect to by the
respondent authorities. Indeed, in the scheme of things, it was
unnecessary to hear the appellant herein or for the private
respondents to the earlier petition being impleaded since, after hearing
such private respondents, the order dated April 13, 2016 came to be
made and such order called upon the local administration to ensure the
completion of the project as per the planned route.
8.For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment and order impugned
dated April 12, 2019, do not call for any interference. The respondent
authorities would do well to ensure the expeditious completion of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.117 of 2021
public project without caring for any resistance from any quarters,
particularly by any local residents.
The appeal is devoid of merit and W.A.No.117 of 2021 is
dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently,
C.M.P.No.691 of 2021 also stands dismissed.
(S.B., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.)
29.01.2021
Index : Yes
sra
To
1.The District Collector,
Erode District, Erode 638 011.
2.The Special Officer/ Block
Development Officer, Chennimalai
Panchayat Union, Chennimalai 638 051,
Erode District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.117 of 2021
The Hon'ble Chief Justice
and
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.
(sra)
W.A.No.117 of 2021
29.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
