Dismissed

Maganlal Mehta and Co, v. the Assistant Divisional

Madras HC9 Nov 2016WP(MD)/11024/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order directing removal of Advertisement boards was withdrawn by the petitioner after the court observed that the 2007 permit did not confer a perpetual right. The petition was dismissed with directions to remove the boards.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition withdrawn and dismissed with directions to remove advertisement boards within two weeks.

Maganlal Mehta and Co, Vs the Assistant Divisional — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.11 .2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶8

W.P(MD)No.11024 of 2014

¶9

MAGANLAL MEHTA AND CO

¶10

REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR NITUL MEHTA NO.51 AVM BUILDING KALLUKATTI NORTH KARAIKUDI SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT .. Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1 THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS KARAIKUDI SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT

¶13

2 THE COMMISSIONER KARAIKUDI MUNICIPALITY KARAIKUDI SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT .. Respondents

¶14

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in Ka.No. 40/2014/E.Ne.U dated 01.07.2014 and quash the same as illegal.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.Mahaboob Athiff for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan for R1 Spl. Government Pleader R2 : No Appearance

¶16

ORDER

¶17

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

¶18

The petitioner has come up with this writ petition challenging the order passed by the 1^st respondent by his proceedings Ka.No.40/2014/E.Nc.U dated 01.07.2014 directing the petitioner to remove all the advertisement board put up on the Highways Road.

¶19

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

¶20

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶21

¶22

the learned Special Government Pleader for the 1^st respondent.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that these advertisement boards were put up by the petitioner only in pursuance of the permission granted.

¶24

When we pointed out that the said permission was granted in the year 2007 cannot have perpetual right for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner offered to withdraw the writ petition. Therefore, permission is granted. Since the writ petition is withdrawn and the same is dismissed, the petitioner shall, on his own, remove all the advertisement boards within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if he fails to remove the same, the respondents shall remove the same within one week thereafter. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶26

/True Copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

RR To 1 THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS KARAIKUDI SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT

¶29

2 THE COMMISSIONER KARAIKUDI MUNICIPALITY KARAIKUDI SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT

¶30

+1cc to M/s AJMAL ASSOCIATES Advocate Sr.No. 67284 +1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No. 67941 JAM/28.11.16/CK/2P-5C

¶31

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.11024 of 2014

¶32

09.11.2016

¶33

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

Maganlal Mehta and Co, v. the Assistant Divisional

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maganlal Mehta and Co, v. the Assistant Divisional

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

Anaithidiya Samuthaya Makkal Vs Union of India

Arunmozhi Vs the Secretary to Government

R.Lakshmi Vs the Commissioner of Police

Lazer @ Rajan Vs the Inspector of Police

Thirumalai Advertising Vs the Divisional Engineer

R. Karmegam Vs the Commissioner