Disposed

N. Sankaralingam, v. the Commissioner

Madras HC26 Mar 2015WP(MD)/4338/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Tenkasi Municipality to remove unauthorized construction by the respondent petitioner. The court disposed of the petition by directing the municipality to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the second

N. Sankaralingam, Vs the Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 26.03.2015

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN

¶6

and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI

¶7

W.P(MD)No.4338 of 2015

¶8

N.Sankaralingam ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs .

¶10

1.The Commissioner, Tenkasi Municipality, Tenkasi Town, Tirunelveli District.

¶11

2.P.Subbiah ... Respondents

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent herein to take necessary action to remove the unauthorized construction made by the 2^nd respondent herein on the basis of the proceedings of the first respondent herein dated 30.09.2014 as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu

¶14

ORDER

¶15

(Order of the Court was made by S.TAMILVANAN,J)

¶16

This writ petition has been filed invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking an order in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to take necessary action to remove the unauthorized construction made by the 2^nd respondent herein on the basis of the proceedings of the first respondent herein dated 30.09.2014 as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920.

¶17

2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it would suffice, if the first respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner based on the earlier order passed by the first respondent dated 30.09.2014.

¶18

3.Having considered the limited scope of the writ petition, we find it just and reasonable to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders according to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the second respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation if any submitted by the petitioner based on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the order passed by the first respondent dated 30.09.2014 and pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law, after providing

¶19

¶20

reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the second respondent and other rival claimants, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar (Per Admn)

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

The Commissioner, Tenkasi Municipality, Tenkasi Town, Tirunelveli District.

¶26

+1cc to MR.M.THIRUNAVUKKARASU, ADVOCATE IN SR : 14860

¶27

Sms SR : 17.04.2015 : 2p/3c

¶28

W.P(MD)No.4338 of 2015 26.03.2015

¶29

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

N. Sankaralingam, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Sankaralingam, 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

The Secretary to the Vs K.Govindaraj

Umadevi, W/O. Periyasamy, Vs the Commissioner

S.Rajendraprased, Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.Nagaraj Vs the Secretary

P.Chidambaram, Vs the Tamil Nadu State Transport

K.R. Vellaichamy Vs the Superintendent of Police