Disposed

D.Ravathi v. the District Collector

Madras HC6 Aug 2020WP/24256/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking direction to fix rent and provide electricity connection for a bunk shop. Court directed the Municipal Commissioner to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders within eight weeks, expressing no opinion on merits regarding encroachment allegations.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits within eight weeks.

D.Ravathi Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.08.2020

¶2

CORAM :

¶3

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶4

W.P.No.24256 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶5

D.Revathi ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶8

2.The Municipal Commissioner, Vriddhachalam Municipality, Vriddhachalam, Cuddalore District.

¶9

3.The Municipal Chairman, Vriddhachalam Municipality, Vriddhachalam, Cuddalore District. ... Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 & 3 to fix the rent and provide electricity service connection to the petitioner's bunk shop at Vriddhachalam Bus Stand pursuant to the representation dated 10.07.2013 by the petitioner.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi For Respondents: Ms.A.Madhumathi,

¶12

Special Government Pleader (R1) Mr.R.P.Prathap Singh (R2 & R3) Government Advocate

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 & 3 to fix the rent and provide electricity service connection to the petitioner's bunk shop at Vriddhachalam Bus Stand pursuant to the representation dated 10.07.2013 by the petitioner.

¶15

2.Mr.R.P.Prathap Singh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 2 & 3 submitted that the petitioner is an encroacher and therefore, the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition cannot be granted. However, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the 2^nd respondent may be directed to consider and pass orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner on 10.07.2013 within a time frame in accordance with law.

¶16

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

¶17

3.Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submitted that it would be suffice to direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.07.2013 and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶18

4.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.07.2013 and 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.

¶19

5.With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
va
To
1.The District Collector,
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
2.The Municipal Commissioner,
Vriddhachalam Municipality,
Vriddhachalam, Cuddalore District.
3.The Municipal Chairman,
Vriddhachalam Municipality,
Vriddhachalam, Cuddalore District.
+1cc to Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi , Advocate SR.No. 26449
+1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.No. 26457
W.P.No.24256 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
pvs co
A.SK(21/08/2020)

¶21

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

D.Ravathi v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Ravathi v. the District Collector

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

Mrs. Pavalakodi, Vs the Principal Secretary and

A.Sathiq Basha Vs The Chairman

P.Raja Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Gnanambal Vs the District Registrar

P.Senthil Kumar, Vs the Tahsildar

M/S. C.Kalyanam Higher Vs the Tamil Nadu Electricity