Disposed

S.Ragu Bernard v. The Commissioner

Madras HC3 Apr 2017WP/35970/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition for mandamus, the High Court directed Corporation officials to decide on a petitioner's demolition representation after putting both parties on notice. The Court refrained from adjudicating the inter se title dispute between the parties that was pending as a suit.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 2 and 3 to pass orders on the representation dated 11.01.2016 within six weeks on notice to both parties.

S.Ragu Bernard Vs The Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.04.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

W.P.NO.35970 OF 2016 AND W.M.P.NO.30940 OF 2016

¶6

S.Ragu Bernard ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Chennai.
2.The Executive Engineer, Zone - IX
Corporation of Chennai
Krishnamoorthy Road,
Erukkancherry,
Chennai - 600 118.
3.The Assistant Executive Engineer
Area No.36, Zone - IX,
Corporation of Chennai
Krishnamoorthy Road,
Erukkancherry,
Chennai - 600 118.
4.R.Jasindha ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of
Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the
representation dated 11.01.2016 of the petitioner and demolish
the dilapidated and dangerous building situated at Old Door
No.5/1, New Door No.13, Thiru.Vi.Ka. Street, Erukkancherry,
Chennai - 600 118.
For Petitioner : Mr.W.M.Abdul Majeed
For Respondents :
1 to 3 Mr.P.V.Selvakumar
For Respondent 4: Mr.A.D.Janarthanan

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation dated 11.01.2016 of the petitioner and demolish the dilapidated and dangerous building situated at Old Door No.5/1, New Door No.13, Thiru.Vi.Ka. Street, Erukkancherry, Chennai - 600 118.

¶8

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

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

The petitioner and the fourth respondent are close relatives. Both claims title to the property in question. The petitioner has made a representation inter alia alleging that the building in which the fourth respondent is also stated to be residing is in dilapidated condition and therefore, permission will have to be given for demolition. The fourth respondent has filed a suit against the petitioner, which is still pending consideration. Now, the petitioner has come forward to file this writ petition seeking direction to the respondent nos.1 to 3 to consider his representation dated 11.01.2016.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an inspection has already been made and therefore, the representation of the petitioner has to be disposed of.

¶12

The learned counsel for the fourth respondent would submit that the suit is still pending and respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall be asked to let off their hands till its completion.

¶13

This Court does not want to go into the inter se dispute between the parties. Similarly, the nature of the building and the necessity for demolition also is not an issue for this Court to go into, as the respondent nos.2 and 3 have to decide the issue, as the case may be.

¶14

Suffice it to direct the respondent nos.2 and 3, as the case may be, to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 11.01.2016, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after putting the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent on notice and by passing a speaking order.

¶15

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

¶16

Sub Asst. Registrar

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

To 1.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Chennai. 2.The Executive Engineer, Zone - IX Corporation of Chennai Krishnamoorthy Road, Erukkancherry, Chennai - 600 118. 3.The Assistant Executive Engineer Area No.36, Zone - IX, Corporation of Chennai Krishnamoorthy Road, Erukkancherry, Chennai - 600 118. +1cc to Mr.W.M.Abdulmajeed,Advocate sr.19740 +1cc to Mr.P.V.Selvakumar,Advocate sr.19677 +1cc to Mr.A.D.Janarmanan,Advocate sr.19716 W.P.NO.35970 OF 2016 tm(co) ss(12/4/2017)

¶20

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

S.Ragu Bernard v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ragu Bernard v. The Commissioner

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

B.Prasad Vs The Superintending Engineer

P.Nandagopal Naidu, Vs The District Collector

Ms.a.Keerthi Vs The District Revenue Officer

M.Ramamurthy, Vs The Superintending Engineer

Xomox Employees Union Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Meenadshi, Vs The District Collector