Partly allowed

M.Basheer Ahamed, v. Superintendent Archaeologist

Madras HC14 Sept 2017WP/24629/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a directive for the respondent to consider his application for a Notice Approval (NOC) for constructing a home on vacant land. The High Court directed the second respondent to consider the application and pass orders within eight weeks without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated 11.10.2016 and pass orders within eight weeks. No costs.

M.Basheer Ahamed, Vs Superintendent Archaeologist — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 14.09.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.24629 of 2017

¶6

M.Basheer Ahamed [ Petitioner ]

¶7

¶8

1 Superintendent Archaeologist Government of India

¶9

Archaeological Circle

¶10

Fort St. George Chennai 600 009

¶11

2 Competent Authority

¶12

Government of India Tamilnadu Fort St. George

¶13

Chennai 600 009 [ Respondents]

¶14

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application of the Petitioner dated 11.10.2016 and issue NOC for the new construction of his own home in the vacant land mentioned in the application.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Chakravarthy

¶16

For Respondents: Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari,

¶17

Senior Panel Counsel

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari, learned Senior Central Government Panel Counsel takes notice for the respondents and by consent, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶20

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his application dated 11.10.2016 and issue NOC for the new construction of his own home in the vacant land mentioned in the application.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that inspite of the petitioner's application dated 11.10.2016, the 2^nd respondent has not considered the same and issued NOC so far.

¶22

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

¶23

Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari, learned Senior Central Government Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the 2^nd respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's application and pass orders in accordance with law, within eight weeks' time.

¶24

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 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated 11.10.2016 and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

With this observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rg
To
1 The Superintendent Archaeologist
Government of India Archaeological Circle
Fort St. George Chennai 600 009
2 Competent Authority
Government of India
Tamilnadu Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
+ 1 cc to Mr. A.S. Chakravarthy, Advocate Sr.66815
+ 1 cc to Mr.T.V. Krishnamachari, Advocate Sr.67205
W.P.No.24629 of 2017
SSI(CO)
EU(05/10/2017 )

¶26

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

M.Basheer Ahamed, v. Superintendent Archaeologist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Basheer Ahamed, v. Superintendent Archaeologist

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

A.Karuppaiah, Vs The Commissioner of

S.K.Sindhu Vs The Branch Manager

T.Valliammal Vs The District Collector

M.Nagarajan, Vs The Inspector General of

M/s.Superfil Products Private Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and

D.Charles, Vs The Thasildhar