Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 120817 (MAD)

K.S.Ganesan v. The District Collector

WP(MD)/3539/2025 · 2025-06-10

A D Maria Clete, S M Subramaniam

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

W.P.(MD) No.3539 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.06.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE W.P.(MD) No.3539 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD) No.2515 of 2025 K.S.Ganesan ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The District Collector Karur District 2.The Commissioner Kulithalai Municipality Karur District 3.S.Karthikeyan ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents putting up the construction of the entrance arch in Kulithalai Bus Stand in nearest to the Peralamman Temple, situated in Kulithalai, Karur District, based on the petitioner's representation dated 27.12.2024. ____________ p. 2 W.P.(MD) No.3539 of 2025 For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arjun For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilakkumar Government Pleader for R1 Mr.A.N.Ramanathan for R2 O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.] This writ petition has been instituted seeking to forbear the respondents from putting up the entrance arch in Kulithalai Busstand nearer to the Peralamman Temple, Kulithalai, Karur District, based on the petitioner's representation dated 27.12.2024. 2. A proposal to construct an entrance arch has been taken by the authorities competent. If at all the petitioner is of the opinion that the said arch may cause inconvenience to the people to go to the busstand in a peaceful manner, then they have to approach the authorities competent in the manner contemplated. It is needless to state that any decision affecting the public interest is to be revisited by the authorities competent. The projects that are policy decision of the People-Government must be in the interest of the people and it should not cause any obstruction for the people to have free ____________ p. 3 W.P.(MD) No.3539 of 2025 access to the busstand as in the present case. Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the authorities competent seeking to revisit the decision, if any taken for the construction of the entrance arch in the subject place, in the manner known to law. 3. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [S.M.S., J.] [A.D.M.C., J.] 10.06.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No krk To: The District Collector, Karur District. ____________ p. 4 W.P.(MD) No.3539 of 2025 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. and DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE , J. krk W.P.(MD) No.3539 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD) No.2515 of 2025 10.06.2025 ____________