Allowed

M.Pappa v. the Commissioner

Madras HC3 Sept 2020WP(MD)/13466/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court quashed an order allotting the petitioner a site near a public toilet, finding it non-compliant with a previous order directing the Corporation to allot a regular shop. The Court directed the Corporation to comply with the earlier order expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed. Respondent directed to comply with previous order allotting a regular shop expeditiously. Status quo maintained.

M.Pappa Vs the Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.13466 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.09.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.13466 of 2017 and WMP(MD)Nos.10536 and 10537 of 2017

M.Pappa

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner,

Madurai Corporation, Madurai.

¶8

2.R.Samuvel Nadar ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent in Ma.Va.2/009399/14, dated 11.07.2017 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to construct a shop with permanent super-structure near shop No.241 as mentioned in the allotment order dated 25.09.2013 issued by the 1^st respondent.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.R.Murali for R1 Mr.A.Srinivasan for R2

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶13

2.The writ petitioner herein was given temporary allotment in the site adjacent to the regular shop allotted to the second respondent. The second respondent filed W.P.(MD)No.2998 of 2014. When the matter was taken up for final disposal, it was submitted that what was allotted to the writ petitioner was only a temporary allotment. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge passed the following orders:-

¶14

“6.In view of the submissions made on behalf of the first respondent that the location of the second respondent adjacent to the shops allotted to the petitioner is only temporary, in the fitness of things, it would be suffice for the present, to direct the first respondent to relocate the second respondent by allotting a regular shop as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this order.

¶15

1/2

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.13466 of 2017

¶17

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that even though a direction was given to the corporation for relocating him by allotting a regular shop, he has now been called upon to occupy the vacant site near a public toilet. A photo of the place has also been shown to me. I am of the view that the present allotment made in favour of the petitioner is definitely not in compliance with the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.2998 of 2014. Therefore, the order impugned in this writ petition is quashed. The first respondent will comply with the direction made in W.P.(MD)No.2998 of 2014 vide order dated 28.03.2017 as expeditiously as possible. Till then, the status quo as of now will continue.

¶18

4.The writ petition is allowed on these terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶19

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶20

ias

¶21

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶22

+1 CC to Mr.M. KANNAN, Advocate ( SR-15902[F] dated 04/09/2020 )

¶23

+1 CC to Mr.R. MURALI, Advocate ( SR-16046[F] dated 07/09/2020 )

¶24

+1 CC to Mr.A. SRINIVASAN, Advocate ( SR-16064[F] dated 07/09/2020 )

¶25

W.P.(MD)No.13466 of 2017 03.09.2020

¶26

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

¶27

2/2

M.Pappa v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Pappa v. the Commissioner

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

Mr. N. Perumalsamy Vs The Assistant Executive Engineer

M.Bose Vs The District Collector

M.Malliga Vs The District Collector

N.Kaliappan Vs the District Collector

`Muruganandam Vs State of Tamil Nadu

J.Karkuvel Rajan Vs the Assistant Engineer