Dismissed

P.Mani, v. The Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC25 Jan 2017WP/42308/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, while addressing the petitioner's request for more time, granted three months to comply with the impugned order before dismissing the writ petition calling for a writ of Certiorari and quashing of the said letter. Costs to be borne equally.

What did the court decide?

Grant of three months' time to comply with the impugned order before dismissal of the writ petition.

P.Mani, Vs The Government of Tamilnadu — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.01.2017

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶7

W.P.No.42308 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.36214 of 2016

¶8

P.Mani ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Government of Tamilnadu, rep. by its Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Appeal Committee, rep. by its Chairman, Housing & Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 3. The Corporation of Chennai, rep. by its Commissioner, Rippon Buildings, Park Town, Chennai-600 003. 4. The Corporation of Chennai, Regional Office – Central, rep. by its Regional Deputy Commissioner, 2^nd Cross Street (East) Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 030. 5. The Executive Engineer RDC, Corporation of Chennai, Regional Office – Central, 2^nd Cross Street (East) Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 030.

¶9

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

¶10

The Assistant Engineer, Corporation of Chennai, Area Office, Zone – 8, Ward – 108, MMDA Colony, Chennai – 600 106.

¶11

Rajakumari Koteeswaran ... Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned Letter No.12759/UDV-4/2016, dated 14.10.2016 issued by the first respondent and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ethirajulu
For Respondents : Mr.R.Vijayakumar
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 & R2
Mr.V.C.Selvasekaran for R3 to R6
Ms.Rajakumari Kotteswaran - R7
Party in person
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶14

When the lawyers fight, this is the result! An unending battle between two parties, who happen to be the lawyers.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he had advised the petitioner to comply with the impugned order and a period of three months' time may be granted to comply with the same.

¶16

We accede to the request and grant three months' time to comply with the impugned order.

¶17

The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid direction, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.36214 of 2016 is also dismissed.

¶18

Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

bbr

¶22

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

¶23

To 1. The Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Chairman, Appeal Committee, Housing & Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 3. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Park Town, Chennai-600 003. 4. The Corporation of Chennai, Regional Office – Central, rep. by its Regional Deputy Commissioner, 2^nd Cross Street (East) Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 030. 5. The Executive Engineer RDC, Corporation of Chennai, Regional Office – Central, 2^nd Cross Street (East) Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 030. 6. The Assistant Engineer, Corporation of Chennai, Area Office, Zone – 8, Ward – 108, MMDA Colony, Chennai – 600 106. +1cc to Mr.G.Ethirajulu, Advocate, S.R.No.4782 +1cc to Ms.Rajakumari Kotteswaran, Party in Person, S.R.No.4652 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.4893

¶24

W.P.No.42308 of 2016

¶25

RSY(CO) CA(02/02/2017)

¶26

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

P.Mani, v. The Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Mani, v. The Government of Tamilnadu

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

The Executive Officer, Vs R.Chandrasekaran

Mrs. N.Shanthi, Vs The Tahsildar

N.Chakarapani, Vs The Revenue Inspector

S.Mukanchand Bothra Vs Mrs P.Leevathy

K.R.Raswamy@Traffic Ramaswamy Vs Mrs.Chitra

E.Shanmugavelu Vs Thiru.Dr.Ratan Kumar Sinha