Allowed

T.Balasundaram, v. The Member Secretary

Madras HC22 Jan 2015WP/30977/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the Managing Authorities to consider a representation and take action against a third respondent for illegal construction. The court directed the respondents to consider the representation and afford a hearing opportunity to the third respondent within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.09.2014 and take appropriate action against the third respondent for illegal construction within four weeks after aff

T.Balasundaram, Vs The Member Secretary — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.01.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI,
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
W.P.No. 30977 of 2014
and
M.P. No. 1 of 2014
T. Balasundaram ...Petitioner
vs.
1. The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development
Authority, Gandhi Ervin Road,
Chennai. 600 008.
2. The Commissioner,
Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Building,
Chennai.3.
3. Jagan ...Respondents

¶5

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondent to consider Petitioner's representation dated 18.09.2014 and to take action against the 3rd respondent for his illegal construction and pass orders by the respondents within the time as fixed by this Court.

¶6

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

¶7

ORDER

¶8

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

¶9

This writ petition is filed to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.9.2014 and to take action against the third respondent for his illegal construction.

¶10

Mr. C. Johnson, learned counsel, takes notice for the first respondents and Mr. K. Soundararajan, learned counsel takes notice for the second respondent.

¶11

Considering the limited scope of the writ petition, without going into the merits of the case, we direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.9.2014 and take appropriate action, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the third respondent, on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶12

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2014 is closed. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ra To 1. The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Gandhi Ervin Road, Chennai. 600 008. 2. The Commissioner, Chennai Corporation, Rippon Building, Chennai.3. 1 CC to Ms. N. Valliamma, Advocate SR.No. 3359 1 CC to Mr. C. Johnson, Advocate SR.No. 3525 W.P.No.30977 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 GR (CO) PSI (03.02.2015)

¶13

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

T.Balasundaram, v. The Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Balasundaram, v. The Member Secretary

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

The Inspector General of Vs L.Narayana Reddy

M.Mani Vs The Commissioner

M/s.Mark Constructions Pvt. Vs The Member Secretary

R.Balaji, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

D.Raveendran, Vs Teachers Recruitment Board

Thejas Vijayan Vs Phonex Arc, Assignee of