Disposed

Kaadai Eshwara Cable v. The Commissioner

Madras HC11 Oct 2017WP/26136/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order removing unauthorized cables. The court directed that the petitioner submit a formal application in proper format, allowing rectification of defects, and granted 15 days for processing after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit formal application; case to be disposed of within 15 days after hearing.

Kaadai Eshwara Cable Vs The Commissioner — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 11.10.2017

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

W.P.No.26136 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.27773 of 2017

¶6

Kaadai Eshwara Cable, A registered partnership firm Represented by its partner Mr.R.Elango ...Petitioner Vs 1. The Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore 641 001. 2. The City Engineer, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore 641 001. 3. The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore 641 018. ...Respondents

¶7

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in the order bearing Na.Ka.No.CCMC Sirappu 1/2017/Cable/TP, dated 28.09.2017 passed by respondent No.2 and quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioner : M/s.M.Radhakrishnan For RR1 & 2 : Mr.S.Saravanan For R3 : Mr.O.Selvam, G.A. O R D E R

¶9

The petitioner has come forward with this petition to call for the records in the order bearing Na.Ka.No.CCMC Sirappu 1/2017/Cable/TP, dated 28.09.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same.

¶10

When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is represented by the learned counsel for the respondents that since the petitioner has not removed cables unauthorisedly installed, the officials of the respondents have removed the same and kept it in the safe custody of the Corporation.

¶11

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

¶12

The contention of the petitioner is that only the Commissioner has got power to initiate action and the impugned order passed by the second respondent is liable to be interfered with on that ground.

¶13

It seems that the cables have been removed and the petitioner's applications on 19.09.2017 and 23.09.2017 have not been disposed of and the said representations were not referred to in the impugned order.

¶14

It is represented by the learned counsel for the respondents that no applications have been given, and they are only representations. Hence, it is open to the petitioner to submit an application in proper format and if any defects are pointed out, the same can be rectified and the request of the petitioner may be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders may be passed with 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said application, after hearing the petitioner. On the day fixed for hearing, if the petitioner fails to appear with records, it is open to the respondents to pass appropriate orders, recording the absence and in such event, the petitioner cannot plead that the opportunity being heard was not given.

¶15

The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations and directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶16

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶17

pvs To

¶18

The Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore 641 001.

¶19

The City Engineer,Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore 641 001.

¶20

The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore 641 018.

¶21

- 1 cc to Mr. O. Selvam, Advocate SR.73123

¶22

- 1 cc to Mr. S.Saravanan, Advocate Sr.73131

¶23

- 1 cc to Government Pleader SR.73381

¶24

W.P.No.26136 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.27773 of 2017

¶25

MSM(CO) EU(31/10/2017 )

¶26

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

Kaadai Eshwara Cable v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaadai Eshwara Cable 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

R.Natesan, Vs The Secretary

A.Siddiq Vs The Divisional Fire Officer

Sri Selvakkumaran Modern Rice Vs the Managing Director

M/S.Sheela Clinic Vs the Chief Controlling Revenue

Mr. a.Senthil Kumar Vs The Secretary

M.Thayar, Vs The District Collector