Allowed

The Commissioner v. M.Subramaniyan

Madras HC29 Aug 2017WMP(MD)/7778/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two Writ Miscellaneous Petitions, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court vacated an interim stay order granted on 22.12.2016, allowing the Commissioner of Virudhunagar Municipality to proceed further in proceedings initiated by the Ombudsman regarding illegal availment of housing subsidies.

What did the court decide?

Vacated the order of interim stay granted on 22.12.2016; the Commissioner was at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.

The Commissioner Vs M.Subramaniyan — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Special Original Jurisdiction )

¶2

Tuesday, the Twenty Ninth day of August Two Thousand Seventeen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

WMP(MD) Nos.7778 and 8716 of 2017 IN WP(MD) No.24600 of 2016

¶6

WMP(MD) No.7778 of 2017 IN WP(MD) No.24600 of 2016:-

¶7

THE COMMISSIONER VIRUDHUNAGAR MUNICIPALITY, VIRUDHUNAGAR TOWN & DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT/

2ND RESPONDENT

1 M.SUBRAMANIYAN

2 VELLAICHAMY

¶12

3 SANKARANARAYANAN 4 AMARA JOTHI

¶13

5 RAJESWARI ... RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5/ WRIT PETITIONERS/WRIT PETITIONERS

¶14

6 THE OMBUDSMAN, THE TAMILNADU LOCAL BODIES OMBUDSMAN, NO.100,ANNA SALAI, GUINDY, CHENNAI-32.

¶15

7 S.PANDURANGAN ... 6TH RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT/ 1ST RESPONDENT

¶16

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to vacate the order of Interim Stay granted on 22.12.2016 in WMP(MD) No.17724 of 2016 in WP(MD)No.24600 of 2016.

¶17

WMP(MD) No.8716 of 2017 IN WP(MD) No.24600 of 2016:-

¶18

S.PANDURANGAN ... PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT/

¶19

3RD RESPONDENT

¶20

Vs 1 M.SUBRAMANIYAN 2 VELLAICHAMY

¶21

3 SANKARANARAYANAN 4 AMARA JOTHI 5 RAJESWARI

¶22

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

¶23

... RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5/

¶24

PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS

¶25

6 THE OMBUDSMAN, THE TAMILNADU LOCAL BODIES OMBUDSMAN, NO.100,ANNA SALAI, GUINDY, CHENNAI-32.

¶26

7 THE COMMISSIONER VIRUDHUNAGAR MUNICIPALITY, VIRUDHUNAGAR TOWN & DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS NO.6 & 7/ RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2/ RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2

¶27

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to Vacate the order of Interim stay granted by this Honourble Court on 22.12.2016 made in WMP(MD)No.17724 of 2016 in WP(MD)No.24600 of 2016.

¶28

ORDER : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.M.MUTHUGEETHAYAN, Advocate for the petitioner in WMP(MD)No.7778 of 2017 and R7 in WMP(MD)No.8716 of 2017 and of M/S.G.MARIMUTHU, Advocate for R1 to R5 in both the petitions and M/S.D.SHANMUGARAJA SETHUPATHI, Advocate for R6 in both the petitions and M/S.R.UDHAYAKUMAR, Advocate for R7 in WMP(MD)No.7778 of 2017 and the petitioner in WMP(MD)No.8716 of 2017 on behalf of the Respondents the court made the following order:-

¶29

These applications have been filed to vacate the order of interim stay granted on 22.12.2016 in WMP(MD)No.17724 of 2016 in WP (MD)No.24600 of 2016.

¶30

Mr.G.Marimuthu, learned counsel for the writ petitioners would submit that, there is no intimation from the writ petitioners.

¶31

The 3^rd respondent S.Pandurangan already filed a counter stating that the writ petitioners are not entitled to get subsidy under integrated Housing and Slum Development Project (IHSDP), but they availed the subsidy, for which, now proceedings are initiated based on the orders passed by the 1^st respondent/The Ombudsman, the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Ombudsman, Chennai-32.

¶32

In view of the above submission, the interim order already granted is vacated. The Commissioner, Virudhunagar Municipality is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶33

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

¶34

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶35

¶36

1 THE OMBUDSMAN, THE TAMILNADU LOCAL BODIES OMBUDSMAN, NO.100,ANNA SALAI, GUINDY, CHENNAI-32.

¶37

2 THE COMMISSIONER VIRUDHUNAGAR MUNICIPALITY, VIRUDHUNAGAR TOWN & DISTRICT.

¶38

+1. C.C. to M/S.M.MUTHUGEETHAYAN Advocate SR.No.29563 +1. C.C. to M/S.R.UDHAYAKUMAR, Advocate SR.No.29530

¶39

+1. C.C. to M/S.D.SHANMUGARAJA SETHUPATHI Advocate SR.No.29484 +1. C.C. to M/S.G.M.LAW OFFICE Advocate SR.No.29489

¶40

CSL/RR-BS/SAR-I/01.09.2017 : 3P/7C

¶41

ORDER IN WMP(MD) No.7778 of 2017 IN WP(MD) No.24600 of 2016 Date :29/08/2017

¶42

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

The Commissioner v. M.Subramaniyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner v. M.Subramaniyan

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

E.Babu Vs the Commissioner of Police

Annalakshmi Vs Kuberalakshmi Auto Financier

P.Dhatha Gounder Vs Jayavel, (Male Aged 35 Years)

V.Nagaraj, Vs Malarvizhi

M. Fakkrudeen Ali Ahamed, Vs the District Collector

S.Pandurangan, Vs M.Subramaniyan