Dismissed

P.Kumaresan v. the District Collector

Madras HC9 Feb 2018WP(MD)/541/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging auction of dilapidated municipal shops. Respondents submitted that no injunctions were granted in similar pending cases, encroachments were addressed, and funds were realized, rendering adjudication unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed with no adjournment or direction; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. No costs awarded.

P.Kumaresan Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.02.2018

¶3

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA W.P(MD)No.541 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.567 to 569 of 2018

P.Kumaresan

: Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, Kanayakumari District at Nagercoil.

¶8

The Commissioner, Nagercoil Municipality, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. : Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned Tender Notification issued by the second respondent the Commissioner, Nagercoil Municipality vide Na.Ka.No.7841/2017/A13, published in Dinamalar News paper dated 28.12.2017 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to evict all the shop owners and reconstruct the shops indicated in Tender Notification.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Xavier Rajini For Respondent No.1 : Mr.A.Muthukaruppan Additional Government Pleader For Respondent No.2 : Mr.P.Athimoolapandian Standing Counsel

¶11

ORDER

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

The petitioner came forward to file this writ petition styled as a “Public Interest Litigation” stating that in respect of the shops owned by the Nagercoil Municipality, public auction is sought to be conducted despite the fact that most of the shops are in dilapidated condition.

¶15

2.The writ petition was entertained on 10.01.2018 and on that day, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Nagercoil https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Municipality, on instructions, made a submission that more than 30 writ petitions have been filed to stall the auction proceedings

¶16

¶17

and in none of the cases, interim order has been granted and the petitioner, under the guise of filing this writ petition, wants to stall the auction and in respect of conducting the auction, the dilapidated shops numbering 73 will be excluded.

¶18

3.The matter is listed today. The learned Standing Counsel would submit that 73 shops in dilapidated condition have already been demolished and in the auction conducted a sum of Rs.3,20,00,000/- have been released which would benefit the local body and on an earlier occasion on account of periodical renovation of license, nearly a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- has been collected and the auction is conducted in 95 shops and in respect of 56 shops located in some other places, re-auction is going to be conducted.

¶19

4.At this juncture, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the shop keepers have already encroached upon the roads and created nuisance and inconvenience to the public and the learned Standing Counsel would submit that after conducting necessary enquiries, the encroachments would be removed strictly in accordance with law and the said submission on instructions is placed on record.

¶20

5.In the light of the said observation, nothing remains for adjudication in this matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

The District Collector,

¶27

Kanayakumari District at Nagercoil.

¶28

The Commissioner,

¶29

Nagercoil Municipality,

¶30

Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶31

+1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No.47868

¶32

+1cc to Mr.S.Xavier Rajini, Advocate Sr.No.47843

¶33

¶34

VB/KKR/SAR1/26.03.2018/2P/5C

¶35

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

¶36

W.P(MD)No.541 of 2018 09.02.2018

P.Kumaresan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Kumaresan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs the Secretary

Durairaj Vs the District Collector

Gurudevan Vs the District Collector

G.Ganesan, Vs the District Collector

T.Murugan, Vs the District Collector

R.S.P.Senthil Kumar, Vs the District Collector