Disposed

Haripunisha v. The Commissioner

Madras HC8 Feb 2018WP/2722/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to the Corporation of Chennai to consider the petitioner's representation for vending permission. The High Court directed the respondents to consider the representation on merits within eight weeks without adjudicating the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's representation on merits and pass orders within eight weeks.

Haripunisha Vs The Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.02.2018

¶2

CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

W.P.No.2722 of 2018

Haripunisha

...Petitioner

Versus

1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.

¶8

2.The Chairperson / Zonal Executive Engineer Zone, Zone No:3 (The Town Vending Committee), Corporation of Chennai, Chennai. .. Respondents

¶9

Prayer: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 01.02.2018, as per the provisions at the Street Vendors (Protection of livelihood Regulation)Act, 2014, made for granting permission / certificate of vending and till such time not to disturb with the running of the petitioner's bunk shop at Near in Gate at GNT Road, Near Ashok Leyland Show Room, Madhavaram, Chennai – 600 110, wherein selling tea, coffee and food items by using LPG Gas Stove.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gopinath

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan Standing counsel

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 01.02.2018 as per the provisions at the Street Vendors (Protection of livelihood Regulation) Act, 2014.

¶14

The case of the petitioner is that she is a physically challenged person having 70% disability and she was running a bunk shop and the same was closed. Hence, she has submitted a representation before the respondents on 01.02.2018, to permit her to run the bunk shop near GNT Road, Near Ashok Leyland Show Room, Madhavaram, Chennai – 600 110. Since no order has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been passed , the present writ petition.

¶15

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 01.02.2018.

¶16

4. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the representation of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law.

¶17

5. In the light of the above submissions, this Court without going into the merits of the case, directs the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 01.02.2018, on merits and in accordance with law and pass orders, after providing an opportunity to all necessary parties, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

With the above observation, this writ petition is
disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Rippon Buildings,
Chennai – 600 003.
2.The Chairperson /
Zonal Executive Engineer Zone,
Zone No:
(The Town Vending Committee),
Corporation of Chennai,
Chennai.
+1cc to M/s.T.C.Gopalakrishnan, Advocate SR.No.9599
+1cc to M/s.R.Gopinath, Advocate SR.No.9882
sm:16.2.2018

¶19

W.P.No.2722 of 2018 1/5

¶20

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

Haripunisha v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haripunisha 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

E.Thiruvengadam Vs the District Collector

K. Karthick Vs The Revenue Officer

M. Natarajan Vs the Chennai City

Damodaran, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Tirupur Sri Senthil Cotton Vs The Reserve Bank of India

Mr. v. Mani Vs the Special Commissioner &