Dismissed

S.Sayadmusthafa v. The Commissioner

Madras HC9 Jan 2020WP/35264/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dispensed with arguments regarding an alternative remedy available under Section 452 of the Act. The Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate forum, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the alternative remedy; connected M.P.s closed.

S.Sayadmusthafa Vs The Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.01.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

¶5

W.P. No. 35264 of 2019 and W.M.P. Nos. 36065 and 36066 of 2019

¶6

S. Sayad Musthafa 2. M.E. Mohammed Gulab 3. G. Thambi Durai

¶7

Jayanth

¶8

K. Arumugam 6. R. Shanmugasundaram 7. N. Vijayan ... Petitioners -vs-

¶9

The Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore.

¶10

S.K. Boopathy Yadav

¶11

M.S. Maruthachalam ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in order/notice issued under Section 327 of Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981, dated 05.12.2019 of the First Respondent and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. R. Amardeep

¶14

For Respondents: Mr. Sivakumar, Standing Counsel (for R1) Mr. V. Ayyadurai, Senior Counsel for Mr. M. Guruprasad (for R2 )

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

When it is pointed by the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Second Respondent that the Petitioner has got an effective alternative remedy under Section 452 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981, by way of appeal to challenge the impugned order which has been passed under Section 327 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to resort to the same. He has also made an endorsement to that effect.

¶18

Recording the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn granting such liberty. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar (CS-VII)

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

vjt

¶24

¶25

The Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore.

¶26

+1cc to Mr.R.Sivakumar, Advocate, S.R.No. 2273 +1cc to Mr.M.Guruprasad, Advocate, S.R.No. 2388

¶27

W.P. No. 35264 of 2019

¶28

NM(CO) GN(10/01/2020)

¶29

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

S.Sayadmusthafa v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sayadmusthafa 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

S.Subramanian Vs The Union of India

R.Chinnasamy Vs The District Registrar

G.B.Nandakumar Vs The Tahsildar

Anbu, Vs The Inspector General of Registration

A.Arokiyasamy, Vs The Tahsildar and Record Officer

E.Chandrappa, Vs The Inspector General of Registration