Disposed

M.Soundarrajan v. the Principal Secretary

Madras HC18 May 2017WP/31344/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to dispose of his pending representation for a no objection certificate for a Xerox shop after eviction. Court directed the Principal Secretary to decide the representation within eight weeks and disposed of the writ petition. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 30.12.2005 within eight weeks. Writ petition disposed of. No order as to costs.

M.Soundarrajan Vs the Principal Secretary — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.05.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

W.P.No.31344 of 2013

M.Soundarrajan

.. Petitioner

Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary,
The Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Natural
Disaster Management & Mitigation Department,
Chepauk,
Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Vellore, Vellore District.
3.The Executive Engineer,
P.W.D.(Building),
C&M Division,
Vellore-4.
4.The Tahsildar,
Arakkonam Taluk Office,
Arakkonam,
Vellore District.
5.The Assistant Engineer,
P.W.D. (Buildings),
C & M Section,
Arakkonam,
Vellore District. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus
directing the first respondent herein to pass appropriate
orders on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated
30.12.2005 for no objection certificate to running a Xerox shop
in the premises of the Arakkonam Taluk Office compound the
fourth respondent herein.

¶9

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

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.Dalit Tiger C. Ponnusamy For Respondents : Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. Government Pleader

¶11

The petitioner was running a Xerox shop in the premises of Taluk Office, Arakkonam, Vellore District. Because of nonissuance of no objection certificate by the first respondent, the petitioner has been evicted from his place of business. De hors the eviction, the representation given by the petitioner seeking no objection from the first respondent dated 30.12.2005 is said to be pending with the first respondent without any further orders, the petitioner seeks a Mandamus for disposal of his representation.

¶12

2.The eviction of the petitioner has also been confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.5634 of 2016 by dismissing the writ petition. Without going into the merits of the case, there will be a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 30.12.2005 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to send a copy of his representation dated 30.12.2005 along with subsequent representations made by the petitioner and on receipt of the same, the first respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶13

3.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶14

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶15

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶16

kal

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

¶20

1.The Principal Secretary,
The Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Natural
Disaster Management & Mitigation Department,
Chepauk,
Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Vellore, Vellore District.
3.The Executive Engineer,
P.W.D.(Building),
C&M Division,
Vellore-4.
4.The Tahsildar,
Arakkonam Taluk Office,
Arakkonam,
Vellore District.
5.The Assistant Engineer,
P.W.D. (Buildings),
C & M Section,
Arakkonam,
Vellore District.
+1 cc to M/s.Dalit Tiger C.Ponnusamy Advocate sr 37656
+1 cc to Government Pleader sr 37783

¶21

W.P.No.31344 of 2013

¶22

aa13/06/2017

¶23

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

M.Soundarrajan v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Soundarrajan v. the Principal Secretary

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

P.Padmanaban, Vs the Director of Rural

M.Gunasekaran Vs The Commissioner of Municipal

M.Chandrasekaran Vs The State of Tamilnadu

K.Nadandiammal Vs The National Human Rights

P.Venkattan, Vs the State of Tamilnadu

E.Ezhilarasi, Vs The Secretary to Government