Allowed

Ramalakshmi v. the Commissioner

Madras HC25 Jul 2017WP(MD)/11538/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought to quash an order refusing renewal of a water supply connection due to a pending civil dispute. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the order for lack of reasons and remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 28.05.2015 is set aside and matter remitted to the authority for fresh consideration within six weeks.

Ramalakshmi Vs the Commissioner — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 25.07.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.11538 of 2015

Ramalakshmi

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner Madurai Municipal Corporation, Madurai.

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner, Madurai Zone II, Madurai Municipal Corporation, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in Z2A13/03293/15 dated 28.05.2015 and to quash the same by directing the respondents to renew the water supply in connection No.NG8376 to the petitioner.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.V.A.Dhana Aravindha Balaji For Respondents : Mr.N.Shanmugaselvam,

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the impugned order in Z2A13/03293/15 dated 28.05.2015, passed by the 2^nd respondent, with further direction to the respondents to renew the water supply connection in No.NG8376, to the petitioner.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶17

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property situated at Door No.7, Vaigai Vadakarai, Alwarpuram, Madurai and the adjoining property of her land was purchased by one Nagalingam and Lakshmi Ammal on 31.03.1999 and both of them are her in laws. It is the further case of the petitioner that with an ulterior motive to create encumbrance in her property, they attempted to create bogus deeds. The petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ preferred a suit for injunction against them in O.S.No.144 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town. It is

¶18

¶19

the further submission of the petitioner that the old water supply connection stands in her name and till date, she has been paying water tax. Therefore, the petitioner made representations dated 30.03.2015 and 13.04.2015 to the 1^st respondent seeking to renew the water supply connection and the 2^nd respondent by the impugned order, dated 28.05.2015, refused to renew the same. Aggrieved over such refusal, the petitioner has come before this Court with the above prayer.

¶20

A scrutiny of the impugned order would reveal that there is no reason whatsoever assigned for declining the renewal of water connection as sought for by the petitioner and it has been merely pointed out that there is a civil dispute pending between the parties. Therefore, on this sole ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶21

In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.05.2015 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the authority for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other interested parties, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar (P&A)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

To:

¶27

The Commissioner Madurai Municipal Corporation, Madurai.

¶28

The Assistant Commissioner,

¶29

Madurai Zone II, Madurai Municipal Corporation, Madurai.

¶30

1 CC TO M/s.DHANA LAW ASSOCIATES, IN SR No. 67453

¶31

- 1 CC TO Mr.]N.SHANMUGA SELVAM, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 67477

¶32

¶33

TE/JC/SAR-III : 21/08/2017 : 2P/5C

¶34

W.P(MD)No.11538 of 2015 25.07.2017

¶35

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

Ramalakshmi v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramalakshmi 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

N.Vijayakumari, Vs the District Collector

Kumarasamy Vs the District Collector

Balamani Vs the Executive Officer

Gnanamirtham, Vs the District Collector

Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Vs the Inspector of

S. Muthu Vs the District Collector