The High Court disposed of two writ petitions (one by a deceased petitioner where legal representatives were not impleaded) after learning that the CMDA admitted lack of jurisdiction and agreed to issue a fresh notice through the Corporation of Chennai.
The writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs. The miscellaneous petition stands closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.01.2017
CORAM :
The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
W.P. Nos.30040 of 2007 & 16791 of 2003 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 in W.P.No.30040 of 2007
W.P.No.30040 of 2007
Dr.Mala Parameswaran ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Member Secretary,
CMDA, Egmore, Chennai-8.
2. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam, Chennai.
3. S.Ananthasubramanian
4. Corporation of Chennai,
Chennai. ... Respondents
(Respondent No.4 impleaded suo-motu
as per the order dt.28.1.2008)
W.P.No.16791 of 2003
S.Ananthasubramanian ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
rep. by its Member Secretary,
Thalamuthu Natarajar Maaligai,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
2. Corporation of Chennai, Chennai. ... Respondents
(2 nd respondent impleaded suo-motu
as per the order dt. 28.1.2008)
W.P.No.30040 of 2007 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the encroachments made by the third respondent in and around Flat No.64/1, Indira Colony, First Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83.
W.P.No.16791 of 2003 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the notice No.EC/SD/16907/2002 (02844) dated 21.5.2003 of the respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner
in WP.30040/2007 : Mr.S.Gomathinayagam in WP.16791/2003 : Mr.K.Elangoo
For Respondents : Mr.N.Sampath for R1 in both WPs Mr.V.C.Selvasekaran for R2 in WP.16791/2003 & R4 in WP.30040/2007 Mr.K.Elango for R3 in WP.30040/2007 No appearance for R2 in WP.30040/2007
COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
It is stated before us that the petitioner in W.P.No.16791 of 2003, who is also the third respondent in W.P.No.30040 of 2007, passed away a few years back, but no steps have been taken to implead the legal representatives.
2.So far as the subject matter of these petitions is concerned, it is stated that the challenge is to the jurisdiction of the CMDA to issue notice for unauthorised construction by the said deceased person and the said CMDA did not have jurisdiction.
3.Learned counsel for the CMDA states that he accepts that position and it is for the Corporation to take action in accordance with law by issuing fresh notice.
4.The aforesaid statement is taken on record and the writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2007 stands closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sra
To
16791 of 2003
NRJK(CO) CA(19/01/2017)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petitions challenging the jurisdiction of CMDA in cases of deceased petitioner can be disposed of on acceptance of arguments by the authority that it lacked jurisdiction and the Corpo
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mala Parameswaran
S.Ananthasubramanian
Member Secretary, CMDA
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board
S.Ananthasubramanian
Corporation of Chennai
Sanjay Kishan Kaul
M.Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
