Disposed

S.B.Gandhi v. The Member Secretary

Madras HC7 Apr 2021WP/4563/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras permitted the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondents regarding unauthorized construction. The first respondent was directed to examine it and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks after providing notice to affected parties. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms without costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to submit fresh representation and to first respondent to examine and dispose of it by a reasoned order within eight weeks.

S.B.Gandhi Vs The Member Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.04.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶7

S.B.Gandhi

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Member Secretary,

¶10

Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai.

¶11

2.The Executive Officer, Vanagaram First Grade Panchayat, Vanagaram, Chennai – 600 095. .. Respondents

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take action on petitioner's representation dated 09.09.2019 by removing the illegal and unauthorised construction put up at Plot No.56, 3^rd street, Rajaas Garden, Vanagaram, Chennai – 600 095.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Udayakumar

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.Thiruvengadam Standing Counsel for respondent No.1

¶15

: Mr.D.Suriyanarayanan for respondent No.2

¶16

ORDER

¶17

(Order of the Court was made by Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.)

¶18

The petitioner complains about the unauthorised construction at Plot No.56, 3^rd Street, Rajaas Garden, Vanagaram, Chennai-600 095.

¶19

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

¶20

It is asserted that 3^rd Street, Rajaas Garden at Vanagaram is a street with 24 foot width. Consequently, as per applicable planning rules, the height of construction cannot exceed ground plus two floors. The petitioner asserts that a construction of three floors has been erected with six flats. It is further asserted that no permission was granted for constructing a third floor, whereas the builder has constructed up to 2000 square feet without any authorization. The petitioner further asserts that a representation was sent to the respondents herein on September 9, 2019, but no action has been taken thereon.

¶21

Without going into the merits of the matter, the petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation to respondents 1 and 2 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the first respondent is directed to examine such representation and dispose of the same by a reasoned order after providing a reasonable opportunity to all affected parties, including the owner of the property, which is said to be in violation. Such reasoned order shall be passed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation from the petitioner.

¶22

W.P.No.4563 of 2020 is disposed of on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/TRUE COPY/

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶27

bbr To:

¶28

1.The Member Secretary,

¶29

Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,

¶30

Egmore, Chennai.

¶31

2.The Executive Officer,

¶32

Vanagaram First Grade Panchayat,

¶33

Vanagaram, Chennai – 600 095.

W.P.No.4563 of 2020

PL(CO)

KKN 22.04.2021

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

S.B.Gandhi v. The Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.B.Gandhi v. The Member Secretary

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

R.Rajangam Vs Union Territory of Puducherry

M/S.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs Inspector General of Registration

Kiran Global Chems Limited Vs Assistant General Manager

Peer Mohammed Vs Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd.

R.Jayakkumar Vs The State of TamilNadu

E.Bhaskar Vs Union of India