Disposed

P.Saroja v. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority

Madras HC1 Jul 2019WP/11211/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petitions after the petitioners restricted their prayer. The court directed the third respondent (TASMAC) to dispose of the petitioners' representations within eight weeks and instructed authorities to communicate the disposal order within ten days.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed; 3rd respondent directed to dispose of representations within 8 weeks; disposal to be communicated within 10 days.

P.Saroja Vs Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.07.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDAR

¶5

W.P.Nos.11211 and 11218 of 2019 and

¶6

W.M.P.Nos.11596 and 11592 of 2019

¶7

P.Saroja ..Petitioner in W.P.No.11211 of 2019 P.Arunkumar ..Petitioner in W.P.No.11218 of 2019 vs 1. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, rep.by its Member Secretary Thalamuthu Natarajan Building No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 2. The Greater Chennai Corporation rep.by its Commissioner, Ripon Building Chennai-600 003. 3. TASMAC Limited rep.by its District Manager, Chennai(Central) District, No.B-4, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai-600 058. ..Respondents in both W.Ps 4.Thiru.P.Arunkumar ..4^th Respondent in W.P.No.11211 of 2019 4.P.Saroja ..4^th Respondent in W.P.No.11218 of 2019

¶8

Prayer in W.P.No.11211 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3^rd respondent to consider the representation dated 22.03.2019 of the petitioner and to permit the 4^th respondent, the tenant in the building at No.190, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai-600 106 to continue in occupation of the tenanted premises.

¶9

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

¶10

Prayer in W.P.No.11218 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3^rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.03.2019 and not to take any action for eviction of the petitioner from the buildings or cancellation of the license issued to him for running the TASMAC Outlet No.463 at No.190, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106.

¶11

For Petitioners (in both W.Ps) : Mr.V.Jayaprakash

¶12

For Respondent (in both W.Ps) : Mr.Prashanth

¶13

Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan for R2

¶14

Mr.S.Kousik for Mr.K.Sathishkumar, standing counsel for R3

¶15

No appearance for R4

¶16

Mr.V.Jayaprakash representing Mr.r.Balachanderan, learned counsel on record for writ petitioners, Mr.Prashanth for 1^st respondent, Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan for 2^nd respondent and Mr.s.Kousik representing Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, Standing counsel for 3^rd respondent are before this Court.

¶17

Notwithstanding the averments and grounds in the affidavits filed in support of these two writ petitions, in the hearing today, learned counsel for the writ petitioners in each of these writ petitions abridged / restricted the prayer and submitted that it will suffice if the 3^rd respondent (to be precise, District Manager of Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) at Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai 600 058) is mandamused and directed to dispose of two representations both dated 22.03.2019 made by each of the writ petitioners.

¶18

Considering the limited prayer that is now being made, Mr.S.Kousik for Mr.K.Sathishkumar, learned standing counsel for 3^rd respondent submits that the 3^rd respondent will dispose of the aforementioned representations of the writ petitioners in a manner known to law within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

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

¶20

This douses the anxiety and complaint of the writ petitioners as abridged in both writ petitions. In the light of the narrative thus far and in the light of the trejactory which the hearing has taken today, this Court refrains from embarking upon the exercise of setting out the factual matrix. This Court also does not express any opinion or views on the merits of the matter.

¶21

These two writ petitions are disposed of recording the submission of the standing counsel for 3^rd respondent i.e., District Manager of Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited that 3^rd respondent shall dispose of the two representations both dated 23.02.2019 from each of the writ petitioners in these writ petitions, in a manner known to law within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

The proceedings disposing of the writ petitions shall be communicated to the respective writ petitioners under due acknowledgment within 10 working days from the date of disposal.

¶23

These two writ petitions are disposed of with above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sk To 1. The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 2. The Commissioner, The Greater Chennai Corporation Ripon Building Chennai-600 003. 3. The District Manager, TASMAC Limited Chennai(Central) District, No.B-4, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai-600 058.

¶24

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

¶25

Copy to:(RPAD)

¶26

1. P.Saroja, W/o.K.Perumal, No.63/190, 100 feet Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai - 600 106

¶27

1. P.Arunkumar, S/o.Mr.K.Perumal, No.177/228, Ashok Nagar, Arumbakkam, Chennai - 600 106

¶28

+1 cc to M/s.R.Balachanderan, Advocate, S.R.No.54763 +1 cc to M/s.K.Sathish Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.54413 +1 cc to M/s.T.C.Gopalakrishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.54589 W.P.Nos.11211 and 11218 of 2019

¶29

CP(CO) SSM(23/07/2019)

¶30

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

P.Saroja v. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Saroja v. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority

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

M/s.New Bharath Impex Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Ramupillai Kuppuraj Vs The Income Tax Officer

M/s.Ram Krishan Kulwant Rai Holdings Pvt.Ltd., Vs The Tax Recovery Officer

M/s.Sri Murugan Stores Vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

V.L.S.Fibre, Vs The Assistant Commissioner

K.Saravanan Vs The District Collector