Disposed

M/s. T.M.Radhakrishna Chetty and Co. v. The Secretary to the Government

Madras HC28 Oct 2021WP/23077/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a demolition notice under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, seeking a writ of mandamus to dispose of a pending appeal and maintain the status-quo of the impugned notice pending the decision of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal on merits; direction to the respondents to maintain status-quo.

M/s. T.M.Radhakrishna Chetty and Co. Vs The… — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.10.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P. No. 23077 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.24290 of 2021

¶6

M/s T.M.Radhakrishna Chetty & Co A Partnership Firm Rep by its Managing Partner Mr.T.G.Radhakrishnan ...Petitioner Vs.

¶7

1.The Secretary to Government Housing & Urban Development Department Fort George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶8

2.The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Ripon Building Chennai – 600 001.

¶9

3.The Executive Engineer Zone – IV The Greater Chennai Corporation Tondiarpet Chennai – 600 039. ...Respondents

¶10

PRAYER : Petition filed under Section Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders in the Appeal petition filed under the Town & Country Planning Act dated 13.10.2021 filed by the petitioner's challenging the locking and sealing and demolition notice bearing reference No.ZONE-IV/U-09/DIV-36/054/2021 dated 30.09.2021 issued by the 3^rd respondent herein under section 56 & 57 read with section 85 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 pertaining to the subject property situated at Plot No.G2, Vyasarpadi Cooperative Industrial Estate, Sembium Village, Perambur Taluk, Chennai and consequently forbear all further proceedings of the respondents from initiating any coercive action of locking and sealing for the subject property, pending disposal of the petitioner's appeal petition before the 1^st respondent.

¶11

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

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Gauthamaraj

¶13

For Respondents : Mrs.Akhila Rajendran

¶14

Government Advocate for R1 Mr.K.Raja Srinivas, Sr.SC for RR2 & 3

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(Order of the Court was passed by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J)

¶17

This writ petition has been filed, seeking direction to the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 13.10.2021.

¶18

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.C.Gauthamaraj, would state that aggrieved over the lock and seal and demolition notice, issued by the respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 1^st respondent. However, pending appeal, the respondents are attempting to seal the premises.

¶19

3.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1^st respondent, Mrs.Akhila Rajendran, on instructions would state that the petitioner has preferred the appeal, only in the month of October 2021 and the 1^st respondent is ready to dispose of the appeal within a period of six months.

¶20

4.Considering the submissions of the learned counsels and also taking note of the fact that the 1^st respondent is ready to dispose of the appeal, this Court, without going into the merits of the matter, directs the 1^st respondent to pass orders on the appeal preferred by the petitioner dated 13.10.2021, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to all the necessary parties. Till then, the respondents are directed to maintain status-quo.

¶21

5.With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

Jer

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

The Secretary to Government Housing & Urban Development Department Fort George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Ripon Building Chennai – 600 001. 3. The Executive Engineer Zone – IV The Greater Chennai Corporation Tondiarpet Chennai – 600 039. +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.56678

¶30

W.P. No. 23077 of 2021

¶31

AJS[co] NSK 25/11/2021

¶32

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

M/s. T.M.Radhakrishna Chetty and Co. v. The Secretary to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. T.M.Radhakrishna Chetty and Co. v. The Secretary to the Government

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. Rajendran Vs S. Rajendran

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Vs S.Karpagam

G.Senthilkumar Vs Union of India

Elumalai Vs The District Collector

S.Shivakumar Vs S.Srividhya

Prasanna Vs The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu