Disposed

M. George @ S.George Raj v. The Managing Director

Madras HC20 Dec 2016WP/21030/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged the operation of a TASMAC shop in Jafferkhanpett, an allotment area, alleging encroachment and improper location in a residential zone. The High Court directed respondents to decide the petitioner's grievances within two months. The petition was disposed of. No specific relief on the merits was granted.

What did the court decide?

Directions to Respondents 1 and 5 to decide petitioner's representations within two months; no substantive relief on merits.

M. George @ S.George Raj Vs The Managing Director — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.12.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

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

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶7

W.P.No.21030 of 2014

¶8

and M.P.No.1 of 2014 M.George @ S.George Raj .. Petitioner -vs1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai-600 005. 2.The District Collector, Chennai Collectorate Office, Singaravelar Maligai, No.68, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001. 3.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Commissioner's Office, E.V.R. Periyar Salai, Vepery, Chennai-600 007. 4.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, No.1131, E.V.R. Periyar Salai, Park Town, Chennai-600 003. 5.The Managing Director, TASMAC Limited, IV Floor, Thazhamuthu Natarasan Maligai, No.2, Gandhi Irwin Salai, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶9

6.B.Vasantha

¶10

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

¶11

7.K.R.S.Manian

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

(Respondent No.7 impleaded as per the order

¶14

dt. 18.12.2015 in M.P.No.1 of 2015)

¶15

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to consider the petitioner's representations dated 19.6.2014 and 8.7.2014 and acknowledged by the respondents on various dates respectively, and comply with the genuine requests made therein within a specific period to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramana Reddy For Respondents : Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan Spl. G.P. for R2 & R3 Mr.B.S.Sundaramoorthy for R1 Mr.K.Soundararajan for R4 Mr.Kasirajan for R5 Mr.Abdu Mubeen for R7 NA - R6 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice) The petitioner and respondent N.6 were made allotments by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board/respondent No.1. The petitioner alleges that respondent No.5 has opened the TASMAC shop in a residential area, while respondent No.6 claims that it is entitled to do so, as both residential and commercial user is permitted.

¶17

The learned counsel for respondent No.1 states that in fact both the petitioner and respondent No.6 have encroached on the land of respondent No.1 beyond the allotted space.

¶18

The prayer made in the present petition is for disposal of the representations of the petitioner dated 19.6.2014 and 8.7.2014, making a grievance about the opening of the TASMAC shop.

¶19

On the Court query as to who would take the call on the representations of the petitioner, we are informed that respondent Nos.1 and 5 would both be involved in the process.

¶20

We, thus, issue the following directions:-

¶21

(1)The representations of the petitioner dated 19.6.2014 and 8.7.2014 be decided by respondent Nos.1 and 5 within a maximum

¶22

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

¶23

period of two months from today.

¶24

(2)The first respondent will take steps to ensure that the encroachments, if any, by the petitioner and respondent No.6 are cleared and the process concluded within a maximum period of two months thereafter.

¶25

The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. No

¶26

costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.

¶27

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,
No.5, Kamarajar Salai,
Chennai-600 005.
2.The District Collector,
Chennai Collectorate Office,
Singaravelar Maligai,
No.68, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai-600 001.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
Commissioner's Office,
E.V.R. Periyar Salai,
Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
4.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Ripon Buildings,
No.1131, E.V.R. Periyar Salai,
Park Town, Chennai-600 003.

¶28

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

¶29

5.The Managing Director, TASMAC Limited,

¶30

IV Floor, Thazhamuthu Natarasan Maligai,

¶31

No.2, Gandhi Irwin Salai,

¶32

Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶33

+1cc to Mr.B.S. Sundaramoorthi, Advocate, S.R.No.74611 +1cc to Mr.V. Ramana Reddy, Advocate, S.R.No.74420 +1cc to Mr.K. Soundarajan, Advocate Sr.No.74389 +1cc to Mr.R. Abdul Mubeen, Advocate Sr.No.74288 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.74458

¶34

kk(CO) md(27/12/2016) W.P.No.21030 of 2014

¶35

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

M. George @ S.George Raj v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. George @ S.George Raj v. The Managing Director

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

Mr.C.Ramdass Vs State of Tamilnadu

T.Kesavan Vs The District Collector

N.Murugesan Vs the Commissioner Dhrapuram

Mr.N.Saravanan Vs The District Collector

Muthuveeran, Vs The District Collector

T.Jayamala Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer