Petitioner sought a No Due Certificate to avail a housing loan. Court observed pending dues arising from a nomination rejection and a demand for arrears. Due to lack of proof of payment and lapse of nine years, the writ petition for issuance of the certificate was dismissed.
Direction to issue No Due Certificate denied due to pending dues and lapse of time.
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 :06.08.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.12147 of 2011
and
WMP.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011
P.Ravi ..Petitioner
vs 1.The Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Denkanikottai.
2.The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Salem zone-II, Dharmapuri.
.. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to issue the No Due Certificate to the petitioner on the basis of the representation dated 18.04.2011.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Arokia Dass For Respondents : Ms.K.Bhuvaneshwari Additional Government Pleader for R1 Ms.A.K.Gandhi for R2
The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to issue the No Due Certificate to the petitioner on the basis of the representation dated 18.04.2011.
collecting entrance charges to the bus and other vehicles for the value of Rs.2,30,700/-. Thereafter, he was assigned to collect the charges as per the norms stipulated by the first respondent. Then, the first respondent issued a notification to the petitioner regarding auction purchase and the petitioner paid auction amount to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- in various dates. Subsequently, the auction period has also come to an end on 31.03.2005. Thereafter, there was no due on the part of petitioner to the respondent Panchayat.
3.After a lapse of one year, the petitioner gave nomination on 26.09.2006, to the first respondent Panchayat, for the post of Member of Ward No. 12, Denkanikottai Town Panchayat in a prescribed form as prescribed by the election authority and thereafter they simply rejected the petitioner's nomination. After one year, the petitioner wrote a letter to the first respondent through his advocate, dated 18.07.2007, to know the reason for rejection of the nomination. The respondent replied by his communication dated 30.07.2007. After a long time, the petitioner made a detailed representation, as a result of which, the first respondent has sent a communication dated 17.06.2009, calling upon the petitioner to pay the arrears of charges that are ought to be paid to the fist respondent to the tune of Rs.5,18,812/- in respect of the period from 1997 to 2005, which includes his auction period. Accordingly, the first respondent accepted and agreed to collect the charges from the second respondent by himself. But, at the same time, he demanded and threatened the petitioner as he have arrear against the first respondent which is against the provision of Law contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayat Act 1920. Against the same, the present writ petition is filed.
5.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that the first respondent had not acted against the law or violated any provision of law under his official capacity. He further submitted that the first respondent has taken efforts for collection of due amount either from the petitioner or from the second respondent. He further submitted that if the petitioner or the second respondent had paid the entire balance amount, the first respondent would have readily issued the 'No Due Certificate' to the petitioner.
6.On a perusal of the record it is seen that there was due by the petitioner. The first respondent sent a communication dated 17.06.2009 calling upon the petitioner to pay arrears to the first respondent to the tune of Rs.5,18,812/-. When the due is pending with the first respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition to issue no due certificate does not arise unless the petitioner produce the valuable records with regard to the payment of arrears of the amount or that arrears demanded by the first respondent was set aside in the manner known to law. In the absence of any material, this Court cannot issue any direction. Further, after a lapse of 9 years, the prayer sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar tta To. 1.The Executive Officer, Town Panchayat,Denkanikottai.
2.The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Salem zone-II, Dharmapuri. +1cc to Mr.R.K.Gandhi , Advocate SR.No. 67944 +1cc to M/s.K.Bhuvaneswari , Advocate SR.No. 67480
W.P.No.12147 of 2011
A.SK(18/09/2019)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the court can issue a direction to the respondent to issue a No Due Certificate when there is pending due arising from a rejection of the petitioner's nomination and subsequent demand for arre
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P. Ravi
The Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Denkanikottai
The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Salem zone-II, Dharmapuri
M. Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
