Dismissed

Vincent R.Rajendran v. the Commissioner

Madras HC21 Feb 2018WP(MD)/1827/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Writ Petitioner challenged public action notices issued by the Aranthangi Municipality for construction work. The court, after receiving a compliance report stating that 32 shops and a parking stand were constructed with licenses granted to eligible allottees, held that no further orders were necessary.

What did the court decide?

None. The court took a status report on record and held that no further orders were necessary.

Vincent R.Rajendran Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Friday, the Twenty First day of June Two Thousand Nineteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN and The Hon'ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD) No.1827 of 2018

¶7

VINCENT R.RAJENDRAN ... PETITIONER

¶8

THE COMMISSIONER, ARANTHANGI MUNICIPALITY, ARANTHANGI. ... RESPONDENT

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records vide No.Naka A1/7043/2017 and 12.01.2018 public reaction Notice was issued the Respondent to Quash same and to direct the respondent to follow the legal procedure for after the completion of construction work to fresh public action notice to participate for all the eligible person to be conduct the public action.

¶10

ORDER : This Petition coming on for orders on this day and upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support there of and upon hearing the Submitted of Mr.P.Santhoskumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Mr.P.Mahendran, Standing counsel, for the respondent, this Court made the following Order:-

¶11

(Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J. )

¶12

In compliance of the order of this Court, the Commissioner of Aranthangi Municipality has filed a status report and it would disclose that 32 shops and also a parking stand have been constructed and licences have been granted to the eligible allottees and they are running the shops and paying the amount promptly and also assured that if any default on terms and conditions / violations takes place, immediately necessary action will be taken https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ against them in accordance with law.

¶13

¶14

The status report dated 28.03.2018 filed by the respondent is taken on record.

¶15

In the light of the above facts and circumstances, no further orders are necessary in this Writ Petition.

¶16

Sd/-

¶17

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶18

/ True Copy /

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS- )

¶20

¶21

1.THE COMMISSIONER, ARANTHANGI MUNICIPALITY, ARANTHANGI.

¶22

2.THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI.

¶23

Copy To:

¶24

THE SECTION OFFICER, WRIT SECTION,

¶25

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI.

¶26

+1 cc to Mr.P.Mahendran, Advocate, Sr.No.70579

¶27

ORDER DATED : 21.06.2019

¶28

ORDER

¶29

WP(MD) No.1827 of 2018 Giving direction and etc., as stated within.

¶30

ES/10.07.2019/2P/5C

¶31

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

Vincent R.Rajendran v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vincent R.Rajendran 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

G.Bibin Gnanakumar Vs Hindustan Petroleum

The District Collector, Vs S.M.Kamaraj

Vairavalli Ammal, Vs the Joint Commissioner

Tiruchirappalli Sarvodaya Vs M.Thangavelu

C.Chinnachamy Vs the District Collector

M.Thirumaran, Vs the Commercial Tax Officer