Disposed

G.Sevugapandi, v. the Commissioner

Madras HC15 Mar 2017WP(MD)/2920/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a petty shop owner seeking a license direction. The court directed the Madurai Corporation to consider the petitioner's pending representation on merits within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.02.2014 on its merits and dispose of the same within eight weeks.

G.Sevugapandi, Vs the Commissioner — Madras HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 15.03.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.2920 of 2014 and

¶7

M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014

¶8

G.Sevugapandi : Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai : Respondent

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to grant license for the petitioner's petty shop in an extent of 8 x 6 feet box situated at 5^th Ward, Lal Bahadur Sasthri Street, Near Income Tax Office, B.B. Kulam, Madurai within the time prescribed by this court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Ashwin Rajasimman for Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondent : Mr. R. Murali

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner approached this Court seeking for the relief stated above.

¶15

2.Mr.R.Murali, learned standing counsel for the Madurai Corporation takes notice for the respondent.

¶16

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been running small petty shop within the premises measuring an extent of 8 x 6 feet located at 5^th Ward, Lal Bahadur Sasthri Street, Near Income Tax Office, B.B.Kulam, Madurai. The family of the petitioner has been managed from the small income https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ earned out of running of the petty shop. Originally, the said shop was allotted to one Mr.Gopal and the same is changed to the name of the petitioner, after a period of time. In 2012, the shop

¶17

¶18

was given to the petitioner after completion of formalities required. From 2012, the petitioner has been running the shop till date without any interruption. However, in 2013, some of the officials of the respondent Corporation tried to evict the shop without any prior notice to him. However, the same was resisted and notwithstanding the action, still he is running the shop on the same location.

¶19

4.In the above circumstances, only to regularise the right to running the said shop, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 11.02.2014 to the respondent Corporation seeking permission to run the shop and prevent the officials from evicting him from the said premises. According to the petitioner, the said representation stated to have been made in 2014 has not been considered so far and the same is still kept pending all these years.

¶20

5.The learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that he has no objection for consideration of the petitioner's representation by the officials concerned and direction may be issued in that regard.

¶21

6.In view of the limited prayer sought in the writ petition, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage with a direction to the respondent Corporation to consider and dispose of the representation stated to have been made on 11.02.2014 by the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

7.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CSII)

¶25

/True Copy/

¶26

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai. +One cc to Mr.R.Murali, Advocate, SR.No.14998 Arul RL/3C/2P/RR/28.3.2017 W.P.(MD) No.2920 of 2014 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 15.03.2017

¶29

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

G.Sevugapandi, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Sevugapandi, v. the Commissioner

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

M. Ganesan Vs the Commissioner

Sheik Mohammed, Vs the Superintendent of

Habeeb Vs the Disrtict Collector

S.M.Sivagami Achi Vs the District Collector

S.V.N. Sethuraman Vs the Inspector of Panchayat Cum

K.Gopala Rathinam Vs the District Collector