Disposed

K.Kumaravel, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC22 Aug 2017WP/22260/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court order disposes of a writ petition without expressing an opinion on merits. The court directed the first respondent to dispose of a pending appeal filed by the petitioner against an impugned notice by the second respondent within six weeks and closed connected miscellaneous petitions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to first respondent to dispose of pending appeal within six weeks; Writ petition disposed; Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

K.Kumaravel, Vs The Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.08.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.22260 of 2017

¶6

and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.23481 & 23482 of 2017

¶8

K.Kumaravel ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Ripon Building,
Chennai – 600 003.
2. The Revenue Officer,
Corporation of Chennai,
Ripon Building,
Chennai – 600 003. ... Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order dated 07.08.2017 issued by the second respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to issue a appropriate licence for the tenancy premises in the name and style of “Friends Tea Stall” at No.53-A, Periyar Street, MGR Nagar, Chennai – 600 078.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thangavel For Respondents : Mr.P.V.Selvakumar Standing Counsel O R D E R

¶11

Mr.P.V.Selvakumar, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶12

2.The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned notice dated 07.08.2017 issued by the second respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue an appropriate licence for the tenancy premises in the name and style of “Friends Tea Stall” at No.53-A, Periyar Street, MGR Nagar, Chennai – 600 078.

¶13

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submitted that challenging the impugned notice dated

¶14

07.08.2017 issued by the second respondent, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the first respondent on 11.08.2017 and the same is pending. Further, the learned counsel submitted that it would suffice to direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law, within a time frame.

¶15

4.Mr.P.V.Selvakumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the first respondent may be directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.

¶16

5.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal dated 11.08.2017 preferred by the petitioner as against the order passed by the second respondent, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

6.With this observation, the Writ Petition is disposed
of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(J)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
Rg/ah
To
1. The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Ripon Building,
Chennai – 600 003.
2. The Revenue Officer,
Corporation of Chennai,
Ripon Building,
Chennai – 600 003.
+1 CC to MR. G. Thangavel, Advocate sr 60467
+1 Cc to Mr. P. V. selvakumar, advocate sr 60509.
W.P.No.22260 of 2017
SP(04/09/2017)

¶18

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

K.Kumaravel, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Kumaravel, v. The Commissioner

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

G.Ramesh Vs The District Collector

S.Manohar, Vs The Tahsildar

R.Santhalingam, Vs The Revenue Divisional

G.Kesavan, Vs The Commissioner

Tmt.C.R.Rajalakshmi, Vs The Commissioner

R.Chandrasekar Vs Annamalai University