Disposed

Manjula v. the Commissioner

Madras HC23 Nov 2018WP(MD)/23342/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the Municipal Corporation to treat an order removing alleged encroachment as a show-cause notice, granting the petitioner 15 days to reply and requiring a final order on merits within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent to treat notice dated 09.11.2018 as show-cause notice; petitioner to reply within 15 days; final order within 8 weeks with personal hearing.

Manjula Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.11.2018

¶4

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI

¶5

W.P.[MD].No.23342 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)No.21202 of 2018

¶6

Manjula

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Commissioner, Trichirappalli City Municipal Corporation, Trichirappalli District.

¶9

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Trichirappalli City Municipal Corporation, Ponmalai Division,

¶10

Trichirappalli District.

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 2^nd respondent herein in nfhg;g [ vz;::.vg;1/7661/18(bghd;) dated 09.11.2018 and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mrs.R.Yamuna For Respondents : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan

¶13

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the order passed by the second respondent dated 09.11.2018 directing the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment made by the petitioner measuring 9.05 sq. mts., in RMS Colony, Anna Nagar, Trichy.

¶14

The grievance of the petitioner is that without issuing show-cause notice, directly final order has been passed. Hence, he has sought for quashing of the impugned order passed by the second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent dated 09.11.2018.

¶15

¶16

We have heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶17

Considering the submissions made, we are constrained to pass the following order:

¶18

'The second respondent is directed to treat the notice dated 09.11.2018 as a show-cause notice and the petitioner is directed to give a reply within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such reply, the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, by affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶24

¶25

1.The Commissioner, Trichirappalli City Municipal Corporation, Trichirappalli District.

¶26

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Trichirappalli City Municipal Corporation, Ponmalai Division, Trichirappalli District.

¶27

1 CC TO Mr.N.S.KARTHIKEYAN , ADVOCATE IN SR No.96492.

¶28

- 1 CC TO Mrs.R.YAMUNA , ADVOCATE IN SR No.96513.

¶29

¶30

¶31

DS BK SAR2 19 12 2018 2P 5C

¶32

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.23342 of 2018

¶33

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

¶34

23.11.2018

Manjula v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjula 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

Pl.Lakshmanan, S/O.Palaniyandi Vs the District Collector

X.Arockiamary, Vs the District Collector

E.Senthil Vs S.Sridhar

A.Banu, W/O.K.Alexis, Vs the District Collector

Pankajam Vs the Superintendent of Police

S. Shunmugavel Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by