Allowed

V.Ravichandran v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC11 Jan 2016CRP/4657/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge court granted leave to entertain a delayed statutory revision petition. An agreed order was passed directing the petitioner to furnish a revised plan, remove impermissible features marked by the Municipality, and complete rectifications within three months, otherwise the Municipality may proceed suo motu.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit revised plan; remove impermissible features; complete rectifications within three months.

V.Ravichandran Vs the Government of Tamilnadu — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.01.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

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

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶7

C.R.P. No.4657 of 2015

¶8

V.Ravichandran .. Petitioner/ Petitioner -vs1.The Govt. of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MA1) Dept., Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner, Coonoor Municipality at Coonoor, The Nilgiris. .. Respondents/Respondents Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against G.O. (Pa) No.450/M.A.1/2015 dated 14.07.2015 passed by the first respondent confirming the order dated 03.12.2014 passed in UAC No.25/2003 by the second respondent.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Bharathy For Respondents : Mr.M.Venugopal, Spl.G.P. For R-1 : Mr.S.Kadarkarai for R-2

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶12

The statutory revision petition filed is beyond even the extended period of time. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he seeks to comply with the notices in pari materia position as in Revision Petition No.4238 of 2015 and thus, this revision petition be entertained for that limited purpose.

¶13

2.After hearing the learned counsel for parties, it is agreed that the Civil Revision Petition be disposed of in the following terms:

¶14

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

¶15

(i) The petitioner will give a revised plan within one month of the receipt of the order copy.

¶16

(ii) Whatever is found impermissible and accordingly marked by the Municipality, the same will be removed by the petitioner.

¶17

(iii) The petitioner undertakes to carry out necessary rectification within three months of the intimation by the concerned authorities.

¶18

(iv) Needless to say that if the petitioner fails to do so within the specified time, the Municipality may proceed on its own.

¶19

2.The Civil Revision Petition, thus, stands disposed of in

¶20

terms aforesaid. No costs. MPs.1 & 2 of 2015 are closed.

¶21

sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Cs-III)
/TRUE COPY/
Sub-Assistant Registrar
sra
To
1.The Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu
Municipal Administration and Water
Supply (MA1) Dept., Secretariat,
Chennai.

¶22

2.The Commissioner, Coonoor Municipality at Coonoor, The Nilgiris. +1 CC to MR.D.Bharathy Advocate. SR.NO.2506

¶23

C.R.P.No.4657 of 2015 CO-GJ JD 27/01/2016

¶24

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

V.Ravichandran v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Ravichandran v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gilbert Sundarraj Samuel Vs Savithiri

Mallika Vs Ravikumar

R.Arun Vs Moni

Mrs. R.Fathima, Vs The Chief Secretary

R.Prem Kumar, Vs The Secretary to Government

G.Devarajan Vs The Chief Election