The Court recorded that the Secretary and CMDA undertook to dispose of the petitioner's representation regarding building permissions within eight weeks. Finding no further immediate adjudication necessary, the Court closed the writ petition without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.02.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
W.P.No.37908 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.32483/2016
Nethrodaya
..Petitioner
Versus
2.The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, No.1, Gandhi-Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. .. Respondents
Prayer: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records culminated in the 2nd respondent's impugned Letter No.C4/17250/2015, dated 04.10.2016 and quash the same, and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to issue the approved building plan permission for the second floor construction to the petitioner without insisting for Infrastructure, Amenities, regularization fee and security deposit.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Prabhakaran For R1 : Mr.N.Manikandan, GA For R2 : Mr.N.Sampath, Standing counsel O R D E R
This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the second respondent in Letter No. C4/17250/2015, dated 04.10.2016 with a prayer to quash the same and for a direction to the second respondent to issue the approved building plan permission for the second floor.
2 Heard Mr.R.Prabhakaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.N.Manikandan , learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and Mr.N.Sampath, learned standing counsel for the second respondent and perused the records.
3 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in W.M.P.No.1452 of 2017 in the above Writ petition, this Court passed a conditional order. The petitioner challenged the said order by preferring W.A.No.787 of 2017 and the Division Bench while setting aside the order of this Court dated 17.03.2017, directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents within the time stipulated by this Court. Despite receipt and acknowledgment, the respondents have not passed any orders.
4 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the respondent has not complied with the order of this Court dated 10.08.2017 in disposing of the petitioner's representation, the petitioner is taking steps to file contempt application against the respondents.
5 The learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the representation of the petitioner would be considered within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6 In the light of the above facts, this Court is of the opinion that no further adjudication is necessary in this writ petition, this writ petition is closed. No costs.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
rpl To
W.P.No.37908 of 2016
PA(CO)
SP(01/03/2018)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nethrodaya
Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department
Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
K Kalyanasundaram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
