Allowed

M.Kumar v. The Commissioner

Madras HC12 Nov 2019WP/14694/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A resident petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Town and Country Planning to initiate disciplinary action against the former Assistant Director (third respondent) for favoring a private school and failing to comply with conditions after its sealing. The court, without examining merits, directed the first respondent to consider the representation

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, afford the third respondent an opportunity, and pass orders on merits within 12 weeks. No costs.

M.Kumar Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.11.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

W.P.No14694 of 2019

M.Kumar

...Petitioner

vs.
1. The Commissioner,
Town and Country Planning Department,
No.807, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Assistant Commissioner,
Town and Country Planning Department,
Villupuram Region,
Hospital Road,
Villupuram – 605 602.

¶9

Mr.A.N.Logesh

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1^st respondent to initiate disciplinary action against the 3^rd respondent in accordance with law based on the petitioner representation dated 09.05.2019.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vijayakumar

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambi Durai Special Government Pleader

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to direct the first respondent to initiate disciplinary action against the third respondent in accordance with law based on the petitioner representation dated 09.05.2019.

¶16

2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a local resident. He made complaint to all the Authorities including the first and second respondents seeking to intervene into the matter and initiate appropriate action against the third respondent, who was the former Assistant Director in Town

¶17

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

¶18

and Country Planning for deviation and violation in the construction of Private School building. The School building was locked and sealed by the Authorities on 27.12.2017 due to violation in the construction. The School Management challenged the lock and sealing of the building and filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.997 of 2018. The third respondent has not complied the conditions and allegedly disobeying the Government Order and he was favouring to the private school. Earlier, the third respondent was arrested and remanded to judicial custody under the Prevention of Corruption Act for receiving a bribe of Rs.30,000/- from the real estate owner. Since the third respondent favouring to the private school, the petitioner sent a detailed representation dated 09.05.2019, to the first respondent to initiate disciplinary action against the third respondent. However, till date the representation was not

¶19

considered. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed before this Court.

¶20

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it would suffice if this Court issues direction to the first respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and to dispose of the same within a reasonable time as fixed by this Court.

¶21

4.Without going into the merits of the case, I am inclined to issue direction to direct the first respondent to consider the representation and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after affording opportunity to the third respondent.

¶22

5.With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶23

s/dAssistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶24

True Copy

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶26

pam

¶27

¶28

The Commissioner,

¶29

Town and Country Planning Department, No.807, Anna Salai,

¶30

Chennai – 600 002.

¶31

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

¶32

The Assistant Commissioner,

¶33

Town and Country Planning Department,

¶34

Villupuram Region, Hospital Road, Villupuram – 605 602.

¶35

+1 CC to The Govt. Pleader sr 94582.

¶36

+1 CC to Mr.N. Ramesh, Advocate sr 95210.

¶37

W.P.No14694 of 2019
SJ(CO)
SP(17/12/2019)

¶38

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

M.Kumar v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Kumar 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

Rajendran Vs The Managing Director

Kaveri Ammal, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Kaveri Ammal, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

J.selvaraj Vs Anna University

D.Nedunchezhian Vs The Secretary to Government

K.Surendiran Vs Union Territory of Puducherry