Dismissed

S.Rajasekaran v. Corporation of Chennai

Madras HC19 Aug 2020WP/16645/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226, the petitioner sought a mandamus for planning permission without NOC from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The court found the claim infructuous and dismissed the petition without substantive examination of the merits regarding the NOC requirement. Result: Dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ dismissed as infructuous; Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

S.Rajasekaran Vs Corporation of Chennai — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE: 19.08.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.16645 of 2013 and

¶6

M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶7

S. Rajasekaran ... Petitioner

¶8

.vs.

¶9

Corporation of Chennai, Represented by its Commissioner, Ripon Buildings, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

¶10

Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Represented by its Member-Secretary, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶11

Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Rep. By its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Nandanam,
Chenna – 600 035. ... Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to receive, process and consider the appication for issuance of Planning Permission to the proposed constructions to be put up at Plot No.1250 in Survey No.1011/1A 1A situated at Korattur Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chennai – 80 in accordance with law without insisting upon production of No Obejction Certificate from the 3^rd respondent herein.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.D.S.Rajasekaran

¶14

Mr.P.S.Ganesh. Standing counsel CMDA – for R2

¶15

Mr.R.Bharath Kumar, Standing counsel TNHB – for R3

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Mr. D.S. Rajasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the relief sought for in the Writ Petition has become infructuous, hence, the Writ Petition may be dismissed as infructuous.

¶19

Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Ripon Buildings, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
2. The Member-Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
3. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam, Chenna – 600 035.

¶21

+1cc to Mr.K.Rajasrinivas, Advocate Sr.No.27170

¶22

W.P.No.16645 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 ajs (so) rr ii (09/09/2020)

¶23

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

S.Rajasekaran v. Corporation of Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Rajasekaran v. Corporation of Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Subramani, Vs the Executive Engineer / Urban

Tmt.Jothy Vs the District Collector

V.L.Dhandapani Vs the Director of Town

Saroja, W/o.Raja Achary, Vs The Sub Registrar

Ramu, Vs The State, rep. by the

R.Prabakaran, Vs the Sub Registrar