Allowed

Salem Constructions, v. The commissioner

Madras HC8 Nov 2019WP/24196/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a writ petition seeking to quash a notice issued by the Commissioner, Corporation of Salem. The notice was impugned for failing to follow directions given in a connected writ petition dated 11.07.2017 which mandated an enquiry with notice to both parties before passing orders. The Court set aside the challenged notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 01.09.2017 set aside; directions issued to respondent to issue fresh notice for enquiry within 8 weeks.

Salem Constructions, Vs The commissioner — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.11.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. RAJA

¶5

Writ Petition No.24196 of 2017 and WMP.No.25557 of 2017

¶6

Salem Constructions,

¶7

A registered Partnership Firm rep. by its Managing Partner

¶8

N.Selvam, 335, Vivekanandar Street, Bharathi Nagar, Maniyanoor, Salem-638 010. ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Commissioner, Corporation of Salem, Salem. 2. Shanthi ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records with respect to impugned notice issued by the 1^st respondent herein dated 01.09.2017 in his Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.E4/013125/2017 and quash the same.

¶10

For Respondents: Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari,

¶11

Questioning the correctness of the impugned notice issued by the 1^st respondent herein, namely, the Commissioner, Corporation of Salem, Salem, dated 01.09.2017 and to quash the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶12

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when this Court by an order dated 11.07.2017 passed in W.P.No.17497/2017 directed the Commissioner, Corporation of Salem, the 1^st respondent herein to consider the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ representation dated 19.05.2017 filed by one Ms.Shanthi, the

¶13

2^nd respondent herein, in accordance with law, after giving notice to the respondents 2 and 3 therein, namely, N.Selvam, the petitioner herein and S.Parimala, within a period of eight weeks, without sending any notice calling upon the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 therein to attend the enquiry to consider the correctness of the representation dated 19.05.2017, the impugned notice has been sent stating that as though this Court has directed the 1^st respondent to hold enquiry as to why a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- should not be refunded to the 2^nd respondent herein, namely, Shanthi and also directed the petitioner herein to attend the enquiry on 11.09.2017 at 11.00 a.m., if he has got any objection in this regard.

¶14

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent also fairly stated that this Court by its order dated 11.07.2017 passed in W.P.No.17497/2017 has given a direction to the Commissioner, Corporation of Salem, the 1^st respondent herein to consider the representation dated 19.05.2017 filed by the 2^nd respondent herein, after giving notice to both parties. Since the same has not been adhered to, the impugned notice may be set aside and the same may be remanded back to the 1^st respondent to consider the correctness of the representation dated 19.05.2017.

¶15

This Court, accepting the stand taken by the 2^nd respondent that this Court directed the 1^st respondent to consider the representation dated 19.05.2017, hereby directs the 1^st respondent to issue a fresh notice calling upon the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent to attend for enquiry to consider the correctness of the representation dated 19.05.2017 and then to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶16

In view thereof, the impugned notice dated

¶17

01.09.2017 of the 1^st respondent is set aside and the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar (CS-VIII)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

tsi

¶23

To The Commissioner, Corporation of Salem, Salem.

¶24

+1cc to Mr.R.Nalliyappan, Advocate, S.R.No.93139 +1cc to Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No. 92964

¶25

RP(CO) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ GN(13/12/2019)

Salem Constructions, v. The commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salem Constructions, 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

G.v.Raghavan Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

V.Sundaram, Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and

A,Venkatachalapathy Vs The Sub Registar

K.Palanivel Vs Assistant Engineer O & M

Krishna Modern Rice Mill Vs Muthukrishnan

M/S. Cauvery Power Generation Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and