Disposed

C.P.Raja v. Corporation of Chennai

Madras HC22 Apr 2015WP/11692/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court observed that authorities must consider interim relief applications within two weeks. It directed the Government of Tamil Nadu to expedite the petitioner's appeal and interim application under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, maintaining status quo for two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Government to consider interim relief application within two weeks and appeal expeditiously; status quo maintained in the interim.

C.P.Raja Vs Corporation of Chennai — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.04.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI and

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL

¶6

W.P. No.11692 of 2015 and M.P. No.1 of 2015

¶7

C.P. Raja Petitioner
Vs.
1 Corporation of Chennai
represented by its Commissioner
Ripon Buildings
Chennai 600 003
2 The Executive Engineer
Town Planning (Enforcement)
Corporation of Chennai
O/o Regional Joint Commissioner – South
Adyar, Chennai 600 020
3 Government of Tamil Nadu
represented by its Secretary to Government
Housing and Urban Development Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009 Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2
or anybody on their behalf from initiating any action of locking and
sealing and demolition with regard to the building put up at Plot
Nos.A & B comprised in T.S. No.78/2 (part), Shanthi Nagar III Street,
Adambakkam, Chennai 88, till the disposal of the petitioner's appeal
petition submitted under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and
Country Planning Act with the Government, the third respondent herein.

¶8

For petitioner Mr. R. Mohan For RR 1 & 2 Mrs. Kaarthika Ashok Standing Counsel For R3 Mr. P.S. Sivashanmugasundaram Special Government Pleader

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

ORDER

¶11

(Order of the Court was made SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.)

¶12

Mrs. Kaarthika Ashok, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. P.S. Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice for the third respondent. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal, at the admission stage itself.

¶13

2 This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 or anybody on their behalf from initiating any coercive action of locking and sealing and demolition with regard to the building put up at Plot Nos.A & B comprised in T.S. No.78/2 (Part), Shanthi Nagar III Street, Adambakkam, Chennai-88 till the disposal of the petitioner's appeal petition submitted under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 19971 (for short “the Act”).

¶14

3 From a perusal of the records, it transpires that the second respondent has issued locking, sealing and demolition notice dated 18.03.2015 under Sections 56 and 57 read with Section 85 of the Act against the petitioner. Thereagainst, the petitioner has already filed an appeal under Section 80-A of the Act before the third respondent-Government on 28.03.2015, which is still pending consideration. It is further seen that along with the said appeal, the petitioner has also preferred an application for interim stay, in view of the provisions of Section 80-A(3) of the Act.

¶15

4 It was observed by this Court in many a case that if there is an application for interim relief, the authorities are expected to consider the application for interim relief, within a period of two weeks. However, in the case on hand, despite lapse of three weeks from the date of filing of the application for interim relief, no order has been passed in the said petition. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, we are of the considered view that if an appeal is filed along with the application for interim relief, the officers are well advised to consider the application for interim relief at the earliest, preferably, within a period of two weeks, to avoid further complications.

¶16

5 Accordingly, we direct the third respondent-Government to consider the petitioner's application for interim relief as early as possible, preferably, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and also to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal, on its own merits and in accordance with law, within the statutory period prescribed under the provisions of law. It is made clear that for a period of two weeks, status quo as

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

obtained today, in respect of the property in question, shall be maintained by both the parties.

¶19

6 The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction and observation. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶20

Assistant Registrar

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar cad To

¶23

1 The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Ripon Buildings Chennai 600 003

¶24

2 The Executive Engineer Town Planning (Enforcement) Corporation of Chennai O/o Regional Joint Commissioner – South Adyar, Chennai 600 020

¶25

3 The Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.

¶26

1 cc to Government Pleader,Sr.No22090/15 1 cc to Mr.A.Karthika Ashok ,Advocate, SR.No.21872/15 1 cc to M/s.R.Mohan ,Advocate, SR.No.21837/15

¶27

W.P. No.11692 of 2015

¶28

ca(co) pmk.19.5.2015

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

C.P.Raja v. Corporation of Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.P.Raja v. Corporation of Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.M.Venkatesan Vs C.G.Lakshmi Narayana

The secretary Vs T. Jayarani

P.Kandasamy S/o Ponnia Gounder Vs District Collector Tirupur

P.Devan Vs The Collector of Tiruvallur

The Management of Vijayapuri Vs The Secretary

R.Geetha, Vs The Commissioner