Disposed

J.Rajasekar Babu v. The Secretary

Madras HC10 Sept 2019WP/26982/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226, seeking a direction from the Appellate Authority (Secretary, HUDA) to dispose of a pending appeal regarding a locking and sealing notice filed in July 2019 expeditiously. The Court directed disposal within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to decide the appeal within eight weeks and to consider interim relief on 18.09.2019. No costs awarded.

J.Rajasekar Babu Vs The Secretary — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.09.2019

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

W.P.No.26982 of 2019

¶6

J.Rajasekar Babu .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.E.Palani
3.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
4.The Commissioner,
Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Building,
Chennai-600 003. .. Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose the appeal filed by the petitioner on 26.07.2019 relation to the property bearing Door No.55, Ekambaram Street, Korukkupettai, Chennai-21.

¶8

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

¶9

For Petitioner

¶10

: Mr.J.D.Srikanth Varma for M/s.P.Subba Reddy

¶11

For Respondents

¶12

: Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan Government Pleader for respondent No.1

¶13

Mrs.P.Veenasuresh for respondent No.3

¶14

Dr.C.Ravichandran for respondent No.4

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(Order of the Court was made by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J.))

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only prayer made in this writ petition is that the first respondent Appellate Authority viz., the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009 should be directed to decide the pending appeal regarding locking and sealing notice dated 16.07.2019 issued by respondent No.4, the Commissioner, Chennai Corporation. The appeal is said to have been filed by the petitioner in the month of July, 2019.

¶18

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent submitted that the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 provides for ninety days time for disposal of the appeal and therefore, a period of at least twelve weeks may be granted to dispose of the pending appeal of the present petitioner.

¶19

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, we are of the opinion that the Appellate Authority viz., the first respondent, should decide the appeal of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶20

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

¶21

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner may appear before the first respondent in the first instance on 18.09.2019 for consideration of interim relief in the pending appeal. No costs.

¶22

-s/dAssistant Registrar

¶23

True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
bbr
To:
1.The Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
4.The Commissioner,
Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Building,
Chennai-600 003.
+1 cc to M/s.P.Subha Reddy Advocate sr78031
+1 cc to M/s.Dr.C.Ravichandran Advocate sr78057
+1 cc to the Government Pleader sr78419

¶24

W.P.No.26982 of 2019 rp(co) aa19/09/2019

¶25

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

J.Rajasekar Babu v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Rajasekar Babu v. The Secretary

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

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Caim Energy India Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Nepc Agro Foods Ltd.

Commissioer of Income Tax Vs M/S. Arun Textiles Pvt. Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Lakshmi Machine Woks Ltd.

M/S.Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S.Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax