Disposed

Munvar Sheriff v. The Zonal Officer

Madras HC18 Jan 2016WP/36092/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari and mandamus to quash a notice demanding documents and to obtain a trade licence for an automobile workshop. The Court held the notice was appropriate and disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to furnish the requested details within two weeks. Status quo was maintained until the respondent decided the matter on receipt of documents.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to furnish requested details and representations within two weeks. Status quo maintained.

Munvar Sheriff Vs The Zonal Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 18.01.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.36092 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶6

Munvar Sheriff .. Petitioner

¶7

¶8

1.The Zonal Officer-Zone 9, Corporation of Chennai, No.1, Lake Area 4^th Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.

¶9

2.Mohammed Fiazullah .. Respondents

¶10

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order issued by the 1^st respondent in reference number Ma.A9.Va.Thu.Na.Ka.No.2938/2015 dt.16.10.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to issue to the petitioner a trade licence for his automobile workshop business in the premise bearing new door No.259, old door No.135/A and situated in Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Gopalapuram, Chennai-86 subject to any condition that may be imposed by this Honourable Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sirajudeen

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.P.V.Selvakumar for R1 Mr.L.Damodaran for R2

¶13

The petitioner is aggrieved by a notice issued by the respondent Corporation dated 16.10.2015, by which, the respondent Corporation has requested him to produce certain documents.

¶14

There appears to be a serious dispute between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent and the 2^nd respondent has obtained a decree of eviction in RCOP.No.1856 of 2013. Against which, an appeal is pending before the lower appellate authority. Though the impugned proceedings is sought to be quashed before this Court, the impugned order being only a

¶15

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

¶16

notice calling upon the petitioner to submit relevant details, this Court is of the view that it is appropriate for the petitioner to submit relevant details to enable the 1^st respondent to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law.

¶17

Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will furnish all available materials and the authority may decide the matter in accordance with law.

¶18

In the light of the above submission, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to furnish the details called for by the 1^st respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the documents produced by the petitioner along with the representation if any, the 1^st respondent shall take a decision in this matter in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date on which the petitioner submits the documents/representation. Till then, Status Quo prevailing as on today, shall continue. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gya To The Zonal Officer-Zone 9, Corporation of Chennai, No.1, Lake Area 4^th Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. +1 cc to Mr.L.Damodaran, Advocate, S.R.No.2579 +1 cc to Mr.A.Sirajudeen, Advocate, S.R.No.2596 +1 cc to Mr.P.V. Selvakumar, Advocate SR.2620 MG(CO) EU(20/01/2016)

¶20

W.P.No.36092 of 2015

¶21

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

Munvar Sheriff v. The Zonal Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munvar Sheriff v. The Zonal Officer

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

Sithan @ Madhu Vs the Director

The Management, Vs K.Dhanaraj

S.Velayutham Vs K.Sowrirajan

K.Karuppudaiyar Vs The Commissioner of Town &

Sai Ram Matriculation School Vs The State of Tamilnadu

R.Selvakani Vs The Government of Tamilnadu