Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 28164
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
K.Palanisamy – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector Tiruppur – Respondent
W.P.No.34307 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.Myilsamy
For the Respondents: Mr.R.Murthi
The court allows for condoning delay in applications for permit renewals in cases where no nuisance is present, emphasizing equitable considerations.
Headnote:This Writ Petition seeks a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution for the renewal of track rent permission. The petitioner's delay in application was noted; however, the court recognized no nuisance exists from the pipeline in question. The court condoned the delay and directed timely consideration of the application. Thus, the Writ Petition was partly allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition filed for renewal of track rent permission. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's observations on delay and lack of nuisance. (Para 3) |
| 3. court decision to allow delayed application and grant approval. (Para 4) |
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.No.34307 of 2024 K.Palanisamy ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Collector Tiruppur Tiruppur District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Tiruppur Tiruppur District.
3.The Tahsildar Palladam Tiruppur District. ....Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to consider the representation dated 12.04.2024 for renewing his track rent permission within a time bound manner and to pass any other orders which this Court may think fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Myilsamy For Respondents : Mr.R.Murthi for R1 to R3 Government Advocate
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to consider the representation dated 12.04.2024 for renewing his track rent permission within a time bound manner and to pass other orders.
2. When the matter came up for hearing the learned Government Advocate had produced an order dated 08.01.2025 rejecting the representation of the petitioner on the ground that when the original permission expired in the year 2018, the petitioner kept quiet for a period of four years and started applying for renewal only in the year 2022.
3. Though counsels nowadays are prone to ask for the relief of considering representation and that relief is as prayed in the Writ Petition should be dismissed as infructuous, however, considering the fact that the petitioner is a farmer and he cannot be allowed to run pillar to post, this Court chooses to decide the issue on the merits of the case. Though the respondent is right that the renewal should be asked for prior to the expiry of the original permit and no exception whatsoever can be taken for the order that is passed on 08.01.2025 however, at the same time it can be noted that the pipeline is intact and is existent. It only takes water from the petitioner's own well to his own agricultural field. It is not causing any disturbance to any third party and there is no nuisance, which is complained of in the impugned order.
4. Therefore, in that view of the matter, the lapse on the part of the petitioner in not applying within the time shall be condoned and the third respondent is directed to treat the application of the petitioner as within time and consider for grant of approval for another term as may be permissible as per the Rules and the relevant charges etc., can be levied to the petitioner.
5. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is partly allowed.
