Okay, I will provide a summary based on the provided case information. Please note that the provided information is incomplete, lacking details about the parties involved, the specific dispute, and the court's judgment. Therefore, the summary will be based on the limited information available and will make reasonable assumptions to fill in the gaps.

Short Summary

This case likely involves a challenge to the application or interpretation of Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. Without further information, it is assumed the case concerns a dispute related to land acquisition, compensation, or the construction/maintenance of highways under the Act. The final holding is unknown due to lack of information.

Facts

The case arises under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, specifically Section 41. The specific facts leading to the dispute are not provided. It is presumed that a party (the Petitioner) is aggrieved by some action taken under Section 41, potentially related to highway construction, land acquisition, or compensation determination. The opposing party (the Respondent) is likely the State of Tamil Nadu or an agency acting on its behalf.

Issues

The primary legal issue is likely the correct interpretation and application of Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. Possible specific issues could include:

• Whether the actions taken by the Respondent comply with the procedural requirements of Section 41.
• Whether the compensation offered (if applicable) is adequate and just under the provisions of the Act.
• Whether the exercise of power under Section 41 is arbitrary or violates fundamental rights.

Petitioner's Arguments

The Petitioner likely argues that the Respondent's actions under Section 41 are illegal, improper, or unconstitutional. Specific arguments could include:

• Failure to follow due process in land acquisition (if applicable).
• Inadequate compensation for land acquired (if applicable).
• Arbitrary or discriminatory application of Section 41.
• Violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

Respondent's Arguments

The Respondent (likely the State of Tamil Nadu or its agency) likely argues that its actions are valid and in compliance with Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. Specific arguments could include:

• Compliance with all procedural requirements of the Act.
• Fair and just compensation offered based on established valuation principles (if applicable).
• Actions taken are in the public interest for the construction/maintenance of highways.
• No violation of fundamental rights.

Court's Reasoning

Without the court's judgment, it is impossible to know the court's reasoning. However, the court would likely analyze the following:

• The specific wording of Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001.
• Relevant precedents and case law interpreting similar provisions in other land acquisition or highway acts.
• Evidence presented by both parties regarding compliance with the Act and fairness of compensation (if applicable).
• Constitutional validity of the actions taken under Section 41.

Conclusion

The final ruling is unknown. Based on the arguments and evidence presented, the court would either uphold the actions taken under Section 41, modify them, or strike them down as unconstitutional or illegal. The relief granted would depend on the specific findings of the court.