Disposed

Mr.C.Prabhu, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC16 Apr 2019WP/6388/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition filed under Article 226 sought a writ of mandamus directing municipal authorities to take action against illegal construction by a third party. The court noted that a notice had been issued requesting the production of the approved plan, indicating the authorities were already acting. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition without issuing any further orders.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of without any further orders. No costs awarded.

Mr.C.Prabhu, Vs The Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.04.2019

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble Mrs.VIJAYA K.TAHILRAMANI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶7

W.P. No.6388 of 2019

¶8

C.Prabhu
rep. by his Power of Attorney Agent
S.Thirunavukarasu
No.7, Udhayam Nagar,
Velachery, Chennai-600 042. .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Ripon Buildings,
Chennai-3.
2.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Zone-14,
No.6/64, Puzhuthivakkam Main Road,
Puzhuthivakkam,
Chennai – 600 091.
3.V.Devan .. Respondents

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to take appropriate legal action against the illegal construction and to remove the shops made by the 3^rd respondent in Door No.385 situated in Plot No.7A situated at Pallikaranai Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District comprised in S.No.668.

¶10

For Petitioner : Ms.D.Aruna For Respondents : Dr.C.Ravichandran for respondent Nos.1 and 2

¶11

Not Ready in Notice for respondent No.3

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER

¶14

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶15

Heard Ms.D.Aruna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr.C.Ravichandran, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

¶16

The petitioner is seeking directions to respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the illegal construction made by the third respondent in Door No.385 situated in Plot No.7A situated at Pallikaranai Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District comprised in S.No.668.

¶17

The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 stated that the site concerned was inspected and thereafter by notice dated 2.4.2019 the third respondent was requested to produce the copy of the approved plan. The said notice also stated that if the third respondent failed to comply with the notice within the stipulated time, the authority will be constrained to take action, including locking and sealing of the premises, and further action under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

¶18

Thus, it is seen that the authorities are taking action in relation to the unauthorized construction put up by the third respondent.

¶19

In view of the above, no further orders are necessary at this stage. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar (CS-VIII) //True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

sasi

¶24

¶25

1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings,

¶26

Chennai-3.

¶27

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

¶28

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Zone-14, No.6/64, Puzhuthivakkam Main Road, Puzhuthivakkam, Chennai – 600 091.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.D.Aruna, Advocate, S.R.No. 37963 +1cc to Dr.C.Ravichandran, Advocate, S.R.No. 37453

¶30

W.P.No.6388 of 2019

¶31

PA(CO)
GN(21/05/2019)

¶32

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

Mr.C.Prabhu, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.C.Prabhu, v. The Commissioner

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

R.Periyasamy Vs The District Collector

Kasthuri Naicker, Vs The District Collector

P.Balu Vs The Revenue Inspector

Indian Bank Vs The District Magistrate / District Collector

I.Sundaram Vs the District Collector

Mrs. Vasuki Vs M/S Lng Trade Import&