Disposed

P.K.Duraisamy v. The Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC15 Jul 2015WP/21304/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a writ petition seeking mandamus for expeditious disposal of a pending appeal under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act is not maintainable at that stage as the statutory authority has not been given time to act. The Court deprecated rushing to high courts and granted status quo for two weeks pending interim relief application.

What did the court decide?

Status quo of the property to be maintained for two weeks from the date of the order.

P.K.Duraisamy Vs The Government of Tamilnadu — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15/7/2015

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI

¶5

and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL

¶6

W.P. No.21304 of 2015

¶7

and
M.P. No.1 of 2015
P.K.Duraisamy ...Petitioner
Vs
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep. By Secretary to Government
Housing and Urban Development Department
Fort St. George
Secretariat
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Town and Country Planning
No.807 Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002.
3. The District Collector/Chairman
Erode Local Planning Authority
Erode.
4. The Member Secretary (I/c)
Erode Local Planning Authority
Erode.
5. The Assistant Commissioner
Erode Corporation
Zone II
Periyasemur
Erode 638 004.

¶8

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

¶9

The Commissioner Erode City Municipal Corporation Erode. ...Respondents

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 2 to 6 from in any manner locking & sealing and demolishing the premises bearing Plot Nos.63 to 68 in R.S.No.192/2pt (Adjacent to R.S.No.193, Khaniravuthuar Kulam), Ward – 17, Periyasemur, Erode Corporation pursuant to the notice bearing ROC No.1266/2014 ELPA-2 dated 2/7/2015, issued by the fourth respondent, till the disposal of the appeal dated 8/7/2015 pending before the first respondent in accordance with law.

¶11

Feeling aggrieved by the notice dated 2^nd July, 2015 issued by the fourth respondent under Section 56 (2A) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”), the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 80-A of the Act before the first respondent-Government, with an application for interim relief, on 8^th July, 2015. Without waiting for a reasonable time, the petitioner has rushed to this Court with the instant writ petition on 13^th July, 2015, seeking a direction to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal, expeditiously.

¶12

At this stage, it is better to point out certain provisions of law under which an appeal is to be decided. The second proviso to Section 80-A of the Act prescribes that the application for revision/appeal filed under Section 80-A of the Act shall be disposed of by the Government within 90 days from the date of receipt of the application. Grant of 90 days time to dispose of the appeal is certainly with some object, perhaps, to obtain views of the authorities and also to provide an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. In that process, 90 days time may be required to render justice between the parties.

¶13

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

¶14

Now, the petitioner has come up with the instant writ petition within 10 days from the date of preferring the appeal, seeking a mandamus which is normally issued against an authority for non-action or inaction or against wrong action. Certainly, this is not a case where issue of non-action, wrong action or inaction has arisen, as, the Appellate Authority has not been given an opportunity to take action, within the reasonable time. Thus, this writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus is not maintainable, at this stage.

¶15

We deprecate this practice of rushing to the Writ Court invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without waiting for a decision within the prescribed statutory period. This practice is tantamount to abuse of judicial process.

¶16

It is also brought to our notice that an application for interim relief has also been filed under Section 80-A(3) of the Act. We expect that the authorities will consider the application for interim relief, at the earliest, preferably within a period of two weeks, whenever an application for interim relief is filed along with the memorandum of appeal.

¶17

In view of the foregoing, status quo, in respect of the property in question, as obtained today, shall be maintained for a period of two weeks from today.

¶18

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

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

mvs.

¶23

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

¶24

To
1. The Secretary to Government
The Government of Tamil Nadu
Housing and Urban Development Department
Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Town and Country Planning
No.807 Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
3. The District Collector/Chairman
Erode Local Planning Authority, Erode.
4. The Member Secretary (I/c)
Erode Local Planning Authority, Erode.
5. The Assistant Commissioner
Erode Corporation, Zone II
Periyasemur, Erode 638 004.
6. The Commissioner,
Erode City Municipal Corporation,
Erode.
1 CC to Mr.P.Valliappan, Advocate SR.No. 35986
1 CC to the Government Pleader, SR.No. 35957
W.P. No.21304 of 2015
EV (CO)
PSI (29.07.2015)

¶25

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

P.K.Duraisamy v. The Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Duraisamy v. The Government of Tamilnadu

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

M.Srinivasan, Vs The Project Director

S. Antony Michael Vs a. Mallikinisha

A.Ibrahim, Vs the District Collector

A.Jaganathan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

V.Balakrishnan Vs Government of Tamilnadu

C.Sivan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer