Allowed

A. Bootharaj v. the District Collector

Madras HC9 Nov 2020WP(MD)/15705/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the District Collector, acting as the 1st respondent, to dispose of the petitioner's appeal under the Tamilnadu Panchayat Buildings Rules. The court mandated issuing fresh notice, hearing all parties including personal hearings, and passing final orders on merits within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal within six weeks after issuing fresh notice and hearing all parties on merits.

A. Bootharaj Vs the District Collector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P(MD).No.15705 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.11.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P(MD) No.15705 of 2020

A.Bootharaj

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Madurai District,

¶11

Madurai.

¶12

2.The Block Development Officer, Madurai East Union,

¶13

Madurai.

¶14

3.The President,

¶15

Y.Othakkadai Panchayat,

¶16

Y.Othakkadai.

¶17

4.K.Muthusamy .. Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1^st respondent to dispose petitioner's appeal No.1014 of 2020 dated 24.02.2020 filed under Rule 29(2) of Tamilnadu Panchayat Buildings Rules, 1997, within the time limit stipulated by this Court.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Selvanayagam For R1 : Mr.C.Ramesh Special Government Pleader For R2 & R3 : Mr.S.Angappan Government Advocate For R4 : Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(This writ petition is heard through video conference)

¶22

This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus seeking for a direction to the 1^st respondent to dispose petitioner's appeal in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appeal No.1014 of 2020 dated 24.02.2020 filed under Rule 29(2) of

¶23

1/4

¶24

W.P(MD).No.15705 of 2020

¶25

Tamilnadu Panchayat Buildings Rules, 1997, within a stipulated time frame.

¶26

2.Heard Mr.Mr.D.Selvanayagam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.C.Ramesh, who accepts notice for the 1^st respondent, Mr.S.Angappan, who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 and Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik, who accepts notice on behalf of the 4^th respondent.

¶27

3.By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶28

4.It is the case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the order dated 27.01.2020 passed by the 3^rd respondent granting building sanction in favour of the 4^th respondent in S.No.138/11C2 in Kodikulam Bit Village, bearing Plot No.1, measuring to an extent of 1459 square feet, he preferred an appeal before the 1^st respondent in appeal No.1014 of 2020 on 24.02.2020, under Rule 29(2) of Tamilnadu Panchayat Buildings Rules, 1997. It is the case of the petitioner that till date, the said appeal has not been disposed of by the 1^st respondent. In such circumstances, this writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the 1^st respondent to dispose of the said appeal within the time framed to be fixed by this Court.

¶29

5.It is the contention of the 4^th respondent that till date no notice has been received by the 4^th respondent in the appeal filed by the petitioner before the 1^st respondent under Rule 29(2) of Tamilnadu Panchayat Buildings Rules, 1997. It is also his contention, the building sanctioned by the 3^rd respondent vide order dated 27.01.2020 is in accordance with law.

¶30

6.The relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition is an innocuous relief. No prejudice will be caused to the respondents, if the appeal filed by the petitioner before the 1^st respondent under Rule 29(2) of Tamilnadu Panchayat Buildings Rules, 1997 is directed to be disposed of on merits and in accordance with law, within a stipulated time frame.

¶31

7.Admittedly, the appeal filed by the petitioner on 24.02.2020, has been numbered as appeal No.1014 of 2020. Undoubtedly, the 4^th respondent, who is the aggrieved party, will have to be heard and sufficient opportunity would have to be granted to him before final orders are passed by the 1^st respondent in the appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 29(2) of Tamilnadu Panchayat Buildings Rules, 1997.

¶32

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

¶33

2/4

¶34

W.P(MD).No.15705 of 2020

¶35

8.For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the 1^st respondent to issue fresh notice to the 4^th respondent in the appeal filed by the petitioner on 24.02.2020, which has been numbered as appeal No.1014 of 2020 under Rule 29(2) of Tamilnadu Panchayat Buildings Rules, 1997 and after hearing the 4^th respondent as well as the petitioner and after affording sufficient opportunity to both of them, including granting them personal hearing, shall pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of issuance of the fresh notice by the 1^st respondent to the 4^th respondent.

¶36

9.It is made clear that the 1^st respondent shall pass final orders, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court.

¶37

10.With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶38

Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶39

// True Copy //

¶40

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶41

¶42

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 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.

¶43

¶44

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶45

2.The Block Development Officer, Madurai East Union, Madurai.

¶46

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

¶47

3/4

¶48

W.P(MD).No.15705 of 2020

¶49

3.The President,

¶50

Y.Othakkadai Panchayat, Y.Othakkadai.

¶51

+1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-21748[F] dated 10/11/2020 )

¶52

W.P(MD).No.15705 of 2020 09.11.2020

¶53

BUS(CO) TR(19.11.2020) 4P 5C

¶54

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

¶55

4/4

A. Bootharaj v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Bootharaj 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palamani Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M/S.Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd., Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and

M.Manimegalai, Vs the Commissioner

S.Noorjahan, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

V.Natarajan Vs the Assistant Executive

T.Vijay Vs the District Collector