Disposed

K. Karthick v. The Revenue Officer

Madras HC7 Feb 2018WP/2379/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a lock and seal notice. Instead of deciding on merits, the court directed the petitioner to submit a license application within two weeks, promising the respondent corporation will consider it within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to submit license application within two weeks; respondents to consider on merits within three weeks.

K. Karthick Vs The Revenue Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.02.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

W.P.No.2379 of 2018

¶6

and W.M.P.Nos.2892 & 2893/2018

¶7

K.Karthick ..Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. The Revenue Officer, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Buildings, Chennai-600 003.

¶10

1. The Zonal Officer, Zone-6, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.5, Anderson Road, Ayanavaram, Chennai-600 023.

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner,
Zone-6, Greater Chennai Corporation,
No.5, Anderson Road,
Ayanavaram,
Chennai-600 023. .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2^nd respondent's dated 28.08.2011 and the consequential order of the 3^rd respondent in M9-A6 Na.Ka. R1/7319/2017 dated NIL grant to lease in respect of 12 items of works viz and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 & 2 to consider the application of the petitioner dated 02.08.2017 and grant license for running the petitioners mechanical shop at 48, Othavadai Street, Nammalvarpet, Chennai 12.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilkumaran for Mr. P.Muralikrishnan For Respondents: Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan Standing counsel

¶14

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

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This writ petition is filed challenging the lock and seal notice issued by the respondent-Corporation.

¶17

2 Heard Mr.S.Senthilkumaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan, learned standing counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

¶18

3 It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner is running a Mechanical work shop without any license from the respondent and the same is causing nuisance. Hence, the impugned order was passed. The learned standing counsel for the respondents has submitted that if the petitioner applies for license to the second respondent and produce necessary documents, it will be considered in accordance with law.

¶19

4 The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is ready to submit necessary application within a period of two weeks.

¶20

5 Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to submit necessary application seeking licence for running the shop to the 2^nd respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, enclosing all relevant and necessary documents. On receipt of such application, the second respondent shall consider the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a further period of three weeks thereafter.

¶21

6 With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition are also closed.

¶22

s/d-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶24

True Copy

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶26

rpl

¶27

¶28

1.The Revenue Officer, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Buildings,

¶29

Chennai-600 003.

¶30

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

¶31

The Zonal Officer, Zone-6, Greater Chennai Corporation,

¶32

No.5, Anderson Road, Ayanavaram,

¶33

Chennai-600 023.

¶34

The Assistant Commissioner, Zone-6, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.5, Anderson Road, Ayanavaram, Chennai-600 023.

¶35

+1 CC to Mr.T.C. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate sr 9284.
W.P.No.2379 of 2018
KJI(CO)
SP(01/03/2018)

¶36

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

K. Karthick v. The Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Karthick v. The Revenue Officer

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

Dharani Hi-Tech Projects Vs The District Collector

J.Thilagar Vs the District Collector

S.M.Elumalai Vs the District Collector

M.Baskaran, Vs The Commissioner of

Nethrodaya Vs The Secretary to Government

N.R.Satheesh Moorthy, Vs the Commissioner