Disposed

Mr.G.Kanakaraj v. The Member Secretary

Madras HC15 Feb 2016WP/5498/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a licensed surveyor, challenged the blacklisting order preventing him from submitting applications to the CMDO. Since the petitioner had requested the reasons for the blacklisting, the court directed the respondent to communicate the relevant order within seven days.

What did the court decide?

Direction to communicate the order passed wherein the petitioner has been blacklisted within seven days.

Mr.G.Kanakaraj Vs The Member Secretary — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.02.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Mr.G.Kanakaraj ... Petitioner

¶6

The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Thalamuthu Natarajan Building No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore Chennai 600 008. ... Respondent

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent from blacklisting the petitioner from submitting the planning permission application, plans, application for issuance of Completion Certificate etc for petitioner's clients to the respondent.

¶8

ORDER

¶9

Heard Mr.S.S.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner ; learned Mr.Karithikeyan, learned counsel accepting notice on behalf of the respondent and with their consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶10

2. The petitioner, a licensed Surveyor, who has been granted license by the Corporation of Chennai, appears to have prepared a plan for his client which was submitted by his client for approval. The respondent, by its proceedings dated 21.09.2015, has returned the application for Planning Permission for the reason that the petitioner's license is blacklisted. Apart from that, there are other grounds/reasons for rejecting

¶11

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

¶12

the Planning Permission of which, this Court is not concerned in this writ petition. On coming to know the said fact through his client, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent on 30.10.2015, stating that he was shocked to know that he was blacklisted and he does not know the reason why he was blacklisted. Therefore, he has requested that a copy of the said proceedings dated 21.09.2015 should be furnished to him within a period of seven days. The said representation was sent by Registered Post and was received by the office of the respondent on 02.11.2015, as could be seen from the postal acknowledgment card.

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation submitted that the representation would be considered and the order passed, would be communicated to the petitioner. 4. In the light of the above, there will be a direction to the respondent to take note of the request made by the petitioner in his representation dated 30.10.2015 and communicate the order passed, wherein, it appears that the petitioner has been blacklisted and the same should be communicated to the petitioner within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar AP To The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Thalamuthu Natarajan Building No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore Chennai 600 008. +1cc to Mr.S.S.Swaminathan, Advocate, S.R.No.9352 W.P.No.5498 of 2016 TEJ(CO) CA(16/02/2016)

¶14

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

Mr.G.Kanakaraj v. The Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.G.Kanakaraj v. The Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Sudhakar Vs The Coimbatore City Municipal

K.Palani Vs The Commissioner

U.C.Palanisamy, Vs The Superintending Engineer

Mrs.Tottaramudi Mahalakshmi, Vs The District Collector

Mr. G.Munusamy, Vs The Commissioner of

K.Kalaivani, Vs The Project Director