Disposed

M.Vedavendan v. The Commissioner

Madras HC16 Jun 2015WP/16939/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner alleged blocking of a public lane by a third party. The Court directed the Municipal Corporation to dispose of a prior representation within six weeks ensuring notice is given to the concerned third party before passing adverse orders, citing the difficulty in verifying allegations without notice.

What did the court decide?

No costs; notice to respondents that procedure must ensure notice to third party before adverse orders.

M.Vedavendan Vs The Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.06.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶5

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

W.P.No.16939 of 2015

¶7

M.Vedavendan ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

The Commissioner, Vellore City Municipal Corporation, Vellore. 2. Town Planning Officer, Vellore City Municipal Corporation, Vellore. 3. K.R.Ravi ... Respondents

¶10

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the encroachment made by the 3^rd respondent by putting up construction in common passage iron gate blocking Government poromboke lane in S.No.689/22, Tharapadavedu within Vellore City Municipal Corporation.

¶11

For Petitioner : Ms.D.Malarvizhi

¶12

For Respondents : Ms.P.Shanthi for R1

¶13

Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan

¶14

Additional Government Pleader for R2

¶15

The claim of the petitioner is that two property owners have actually blocked the public lane, but it is difficult for us to decide from the materials on record qua veracity of this allegation. In any case, the petitioner had made a representation dated

¶16

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

¶17

11.5.2015, which is stated to have elicited no response - possibly as it has been made only recently - and the photographs of the alleged blockade shows that it has existed for some time.

¶18

Be that as it may, the Vellore City Municipal Corporation may dispose of the representation dated 11.5.2015, but no adverse orders will be passed against the third parties without notice to the concerned parties. Needful be done within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the order copy.

¶19

The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
bbr
To
1. The Commissioner,
Vellore City Municipal Corporation,
Vellore.
2. The Town Planning Officer,
Vellore City Municipal Corporation,
Vellore.
+1cc to Mr.R.Margabandhu, Advocate, S.R.No.29568
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.29385

¶22

W.P.No.16939 of 2015

¶23

ALA(CO) CA(01/07/2015)

¶24

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

M.Vedavendan v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Vedavendan v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Shanmugam Vs The Joint Registrar of

M.Elumalai Vs Union Territory of Puducherry

K.Sudhan, Vs The General Manager

Jawaharlal Shanmugam Vs Union of India, Rep. by its

M.Madhesh Vs The District Collector

P.Raji Vs The Registrar of Co-Operative