LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-434

M. DEVARAJ, HUMAN WELFARE WATCH, KATTAYANVILLAI, VETTOORNIMADAM POST Vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL BODIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT OFFICE, ST. GEORGE FORT, CHENNAI & ORS.

Decided On January 31, 2018
M. Devaraj, Human Welfare Watch, Kattayanvillai, Vettoornimadam Post Appellant
V/S
The Secretary To Government, Local Bodies Department, Secretariat Office, St. George Fort, Chennai And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is styled as a "Public Interest Litigation", filed by the petitioner, who is said to have running an organisation, namely, "Human Welfare Watch", for the benefit of the people of Kanyakumari District. The petitioner would aver that when Mrs. Meena Dev, was the Chairman of Nagercoil Municipality, wonderful sanitary and civic amenities were provided and after her tenure was completed on 25.10.2016, such good and welfare activities, are not going on.

(2.) The petitioner, in paragraph No. 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, would state that the fourth respondent assumed the office of Municipal Commissioner of Nagercoil and he has not taken any effective and appropriate steps for maintaining the good administration and his only motive is collecting money by resorting to extortion. The petitioner would further state that the fourth respondent is interested only in publicity and not taking any steps for maintaining the sanitary and civic conditions and also issued an advertisement for auctioning all the shops belonging to Nagercoil Municipality and by doing so, evicted the old shop keepers from the municipality shops and introduced affluent persons for locating their business and in this regard, he has submitted a representation, dated 13.06.2017 to the respondents. Since, there is no proper response forthcoming, he came forward to file this writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner advanced his arguments based on the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and would submit that it would be suffice to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider and dispose of his representation, dated 01.07.2017, in accordance with law, within a stipulated time frame.