Disposed

M/s.Tgi Packaging Private v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC2 Jan 2017WP/14180/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition regarding demand notices for Infrastructure and Amenities charges. It directed authorities to treat the notice as a show cause notice and provided the petitioner 15 days to seek legal remedy after potential adverse orders.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; show cause notice to be treated and respondent given time for legal recourse.

M/s.Tgi Packaging Private Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02.01.2017

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

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

¶5

AND The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

W.P. No.14180 of 2015

¶7

and

¶8

M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2015

¶9

M/s.TGI Packaging Private Limited F-44, 45, SIPCOT Industrial Park, 8^th Main Road, 3^rd Cross, Thandalam, Irrungattukottai Village, Kancheepuram, Chennai 602 117. ... Petitioner

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

State of Tamil Nadu,

¶12

Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Dept., Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶13

The Commissioner of Town and Country Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

¶14

Deputy Director (In charge) Town and Country Planning, Chengalpattu. ... Respondents

¶15

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 3^rd respondent comprised in the impugned demand notices Na.Ka.No. 4608/2007 dated 01.06.2011, Na Ka No.4608/2007 dated 08.05.2013, Na Ka No.4608/2007 dated 04.02.2014, Na Ka No.4608/ 2007/SeMa3 dated 25.04.2014, Na Ka No.4608/2007/SeMa3 dated 26.05.2014 and Na Ka No.4608/2007 dated 27.04.2015 seeking to levy a sum of Rs.8,06,000/- along with interest, towards outstanding balance Infrastructure and Amenities charges in respect of the property bearing No.F-44, 45, SIPCOT Industrial Park, 8^th Main Road, 3^rd Cross, Thandalam, Irrungattukottai Village, Kancheepuram, belonging to the petitioner, quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶16

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

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.Prakalat Bhat For Respondents : Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan Special Government Pleader For RR 1 to 3

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶20

On hearing the learned counsel for parties, it is agreed that the demand notice issued to the petitioner dated 01.06.2011 would be treated as a show cause notice and the petitioner is entitled to file a response to the same within two (2) weeks from today. On the response being filed and on consideration of the material produced by the petitioner, a final view be taken by the concerned authorities in accordance with law.

¶21

2.In the eventuality of the petitioner not being able to persuade the concerned authority and an adverse order being passed, the same would be kept in abeyance for a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of the order by the petitioner to facilitate the petitioner to take recourse the legal remedy as provided under law.

¶22

3.Writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2015 stands closed.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

sra

¶26

¶27

The Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Dept., Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶28

The Commissioner of Town and Country Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

¶29

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

¶30

The Deputy Director (In charge) Town and Country Planning, Chengalpattu.

¶31

+1cc to Mr.Satish Parasaran, Advocate, S.R.No.371 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.126

¶32

W.P.No.14180 of 2015

¶33

GJ II(CO) CA(12/01/2017)

¶34

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

M/s.Tgi Packaging Private v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Tgi Packaging Private v. State of Tamil Nadu

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

S.Sargunam Vs the State of Tamilnadu

M.Venkatesan Vs the Commissioner

Dr. E.Chitra, Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation

T.Ramadoss, Vs The District Collector

Mrs. v.Syed Ali Fathima, Vs The State of Tamilnadu

P.Jayaraman Vs The Divisional Engineer