Partly allowed

Dr. K.Rajesh Kumar, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC2 Mar 2015WP/5369/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, in a writ petition, addressed a challenge to a notice issued under Section 222 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 for removal of encroachment. The Court held the notice should be treated as a show cause notice, allowing the petitioner three weeks to file an explanation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice to be treated as a show cause notice; petitioner allowed three weeks to file explanation/representation; authorities to pass orders within one week thereafter.

Dr. K.Rajesh Kumar, Vs The Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE: 02.03.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL

¶6

W.P. No. 5369 of 2015 and M.P. No.1 of 2015

¶7

Dr. K. Rajeshkumar Petitioner
Vs.
1 The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai,
Chennai-3
2 The Regional Deputy Commissioner – Central,
Corporation of Chennai,
Chennai.3.
3 The Executive Engineer
Zone -VI,
Corporation of Chennai,
Chennai.3. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking a writ ofCertiorari calling for the records pursuant to
the notice ZO6/E3/1163/2015 issued by the Corporation of Chennai,
dated 23.2.2015 and quash the same.

¶8

For petitioners Mr. S. Thiruvengadam For respondents Mr. G. Anantharangan

¶9

ORDER

¶10

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

¶11

Challenge in this writ petition is to the notice dated 23.2.2015 purported to be issued under the provisions of Section 222 read with 220 of Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 ( for short 'The Act').

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that before issuing notice under Section 222 of the Act, the Commissioner/Corporation is required to issue notice under Section 220 of the Act. In the case on hand, no notice has been issued

¶13

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

¶14

affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to explain the alleged obstruction or encroachment on the public street.

¶15

Mr. G. Anantharangan, learned counsel, who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents, submits that admittedly, no notice under Section 220 of the Act has been issued as the impugned order itself is under both the provisions.

¶16

We are unable to understand as to how a notice before taking step for removal of encroachment under Section 220 of the Act and the notice to remove the same under Section 222 of the Act can go together. The purpose of a show cause notice is different from the final order passed for removal of the encroachment.

¶17

In such view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, we hold that the impugned notice be treated as a show cause notice and the petitioner is at liberty to file an explanation/ representation to the said notice within a period of three weeks from today. The authorities shall pass appropriate orders on consideration of the explanation/ representation, in accordance with law and on its own merits, within a period of one week thereafter.

¶18

This writ petition is disposed of with the above
direction. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2015 is closed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ra
To
1 The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai,
Chennai-3
2 The Regional Deputy Commissioner – Central,
Corporation of Chennai,
Chennai.3.
3 The Executive Engineer
Zone -VI,
Corporation of Chennai,
Chennai.3.
+1 cc to Mr.G.Anantharangan, Advocate Sr.11212
+ 1 cc to Mr.s. Thiruvengadam, Advocate 11306
W.P. No.5369 of 2015
AK(CO)
Eu 12.03.15

¶19

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

Dr. K.Rajesh Kumar, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. K.Rajesh Kumar, v. The Commissioner

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

Na.Gunasekaran Vs the Regional Director

The Govt. of Tamilnadu, Rep.by Vs M.Lourdhudoss

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs S.Manickasundaram

Mukundan, Vs The Chennai Corporation

M/s.Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The District Magistrate/

M/s.Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The District Magistrate/