Dismissed

Mr.Shabbir Taher Bhai, v. the Commissioner

Madras HC5 Feb 2019WP/1259/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as infructuous. The court accepted the respondents' submission that planning permission had already been issued and construction completed, rendering the prayer obsolete.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Mr.Shabbir Taher Bhai, Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.02.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.No.1259 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶6

1.Mr.Shabbir Taher Bhai
2.Mr.Abdul Kader ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai
Park Town, Chennai-3.
2.The Executive Engineer-8,
Corporation of Chennai,
Zonal Office-VIII, Chennai.
3.The Assistant Executive Engineer (T.P.),
Corporation of Chennai,
Zonal Office-VIII, Chennai.
4.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Rep. by its Member Secretary,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore,
Chennai - 600 009. ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents first and third to forthwith issue the planning permission to the petitioners herein for the premises bearing Door No.183 (New No.236), Pycrofts Road, (also Known as Bharathi Salai), Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014 without insisting to handover the northern side portion measuring 34.50 sq.mtr through a Registered Gift Deed to CMDA or the Corporation of Chennai.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Senthil Kumaar For Respondents : Mrs.Karthika Ashok for R1 to R3 for Corporation Mrs.P.Veena Suresh for R4 for CMDA

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the prayer in the writ petition for the issuance of planning permission to the petitioners in respect of the aforesaid premises has been issued and the petitioners have also constructed the building in the aforesaid land. A copy of the said planning permission is also placed on record. Therefore, in the light of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents, nothing survives for adjudication and consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶12

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Pam
To
1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai
Park Town, Chennai-3.
2.The Executive Engineer-8,
Corporation of Chennai,
Zonal Office-VIII, Chennai.
3.The Assistant Executive Engineer (T.P.),
Corporation of Chennai,
Zonal Office-VIII, Chennai.
4.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Rep. by its Member Secretary,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai - 600 009.
+1cc to Mr.Karthika Ashok, Advocate, S.R.No. 9962

¶13

W.P.No.1259 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶14

VSN II(CO) GN(15/03/2019)

¶15

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

Mr.Shabbir Taher Bhai, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Shabbir Taher Bhai, 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

R.Kumaresan Vs The Regional Transport Officer

N.Indirani Vs The Principal Secretary

M.Chennakesavan Vs The Commissioner

Mohamed Suhail, Vs the Home Secretary

H.Y.Ahmed Sait Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

R. Shanthi Vs the Secretary