Disposed

Thunai Anandraj, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC23 Apr 2018WP/10011/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a PIL filed by a resident alleging unauthorized construction and non-implementation of a lock and seal notice. The Court directed the second respondent to inspect the premises within ten weeks and take action if violations are found.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to inspect the premises within ten weeks and report actions taken if violations are found.

Thunai Anandraj, Vs The Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 23.04.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶7

WP.No.10011/2018

¶8

Thunai Anandraj .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Chenanai 600 003.
2.The Executive Engineer
Greater Chennai Corporation
Zone X, No.117, NSK Road
kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024.
3.Manna Sweets rep.by its
Proprietor, No.6A, Station View Road
Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. .. Respondents

¶9

Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner representation dated 17.03.2018 and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to act upon the 1^st respondent Lock and Seal Notice dated 24.03.2017 against the 3^rd respondent as evidenced in the 2^nd respondent RTI reply dated 04.04.2017 within the time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Seetha Ram For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.V.C.Selvasekaran

¶11

ORDER [Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,]

¶12

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Mr.V.C.Selvasekaran, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.

¶13

2 The petitioner claims to be a resident of the premises bearing Door No.27, C/7, 6^th Street, Boopathy Nagar, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24 and is eking out his livelihood as a free lance film technician. He came forward to file the present writ petition

¶14

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

¶15

styled as Public Interest Litigation, alleging that the premises bearing Door No.6A, Station View Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai - 24, is being used by the 3rd respondent for running a Sweet and Savoury Stall and as per the information furnished by the 2nd respondent, the said superstructure has been constructed about 20 years back and no Planning Permission is available in the office of Ward No.134 and the owner of the premises was also called upon, vide communication dated 07.03.2017, to furnish the Planning Permission and that the Corporation of Chennai has also not granted the Completion Certificate to that effect. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the said information, the Lock and Seal Notice was also issued to the 3^rd respondent on 24.03.2017 and despite that, no progress has been made for nearly one year and therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶16

3 The Court heard the submission of Mr.V.C.Selvasekaran, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials placed before it.

¶17

4 Though the petitioner has prayed for a larger relief, this Court, taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner, directs the 2^nd respondent to put the petitioner as well as the 3^rd respondent on notice and thereafter, cause inspection of the premises bearing Door No.6A, Station View Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24, and if it is found that the building has been constructed in violation of the sanctioned plan or without the sanctioned plan/approval, shall take appropriate action in accordance with law, subject to legal interdict, if any, at the instance of the 3^rd respondent. The said exercise is to be completed within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken in that regard, to the petitioner as well as to the 3^rd respondent herein.

¶18

5 The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

¶19

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

1.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Chenanai 600 003.

¶24

2.The Executive Engineer Greater Chennai Corporation Zone X, No.117, NSK Road kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024.

¶25

+1 CC to Mr.K.Seethram, Advocate sr 30479.

¶26

WP.No.10011/2018
RK(CO)
SP(16/05/2018)

¶27

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

Thunai Anandraj, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thunai Anandraj, 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

Sheik Ameer, Vs The Secretary

K.Chinnaiyan, Vs The District Collector

Arumugam Vs The District Collector

P.Radhakrishnan, Vs The Secretary to Government

D.Murugesan Vs Block Development Office

M.Ananda kumar Vs The Commissioner