Partly allowed

M.Baskaran v. The Commissioner

Madras HC9 Mar 2021WP/5695/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Article 226 regarding unauthorized construction and encroachment by the fourth respondent. Court directed respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass a speaking order after providing a hearing opportunity within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider petitioner's representation and pass a speaking order after a reasonable opportunity of hearing within eight weeks.

M.Baskaran Vs The Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.03.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶7

W.P.No.5695 of 2021
M.Baskaran .. Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Rippon Building,
Chennai – 600 003.
2. The Zonal Officer,
Zone VI,
No.5, Anderson Salai,
Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023.
3. The Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA),
Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
4. S.Vinoth Kumar .. Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner representation dated 27.10.2020 and consequently, direct the second respondent to take further action upon the Lock and Seal Notice No.06/00253/2019, dated 21.12.2019, as per the second respondent RTI reply dated 13.10.2020 within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Seetha Ram For Respondents : Mrs.Karthika Ashok for respondent Nos.1 and 2

¶10

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

¶11

: Mr.K.S.Suresh Government Advocate for respondent No.3

¶12

ORDER

¶13

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

¶14

The writ petitioner complains both of unauthorised construction and encroachment by the fourth respondent herein.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the second respondent had issued a stop work notice dated 09.12.2019 and lock and seal notice dated 21.12.2019 in respect of such unauthorised construction, but no follow up action was taken thereafter.

¶16

Mrs.Karthika Ashok, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. She states that action has already been initiated under Sections 56 and 57 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 in respect of the unauthorised construction. As regards the alleged encroachment of public land, she states that necessary action would be taken upon conducting an inquiry in that regard.

¶17

Accordingly, without examining the merits or tenability of the representation dated 27.10.2020, respondents 1 and 2 herein are directed to consider such representation and pass a speaking order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the affected parties, including the fourth respondent. Such speaking order shall be passed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

W.P.No.5695 of 2021 is disposed of on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

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

¶24

bbr
To:
1.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Rippon Building,
Chennai – 600 003.
2.The Zonal Officer,
Zone VI,
No.5, Anderson Salai,
Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023.
3.The Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA),
Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
+1 cc to M/s.K.Seetharaman, Advocate Sr.No. 14816
+1 cc to M/s.Karthika Ashok, Advocate Sr.No. 15341
+1 cc to The Government Pleader Sr.No. 15205
W.P.No.5695 of 2021
PL(CO)
RMP(18/03/2021)

¶25

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

M.Baskaran v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Baskaran 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

M/s.Shriram Housing Finance Ltd., Vs The Thaisldar

Tamilnadu Independent Rental Vs Election Commission of India

B.Ramalingam Vs The Managing Director

Gnanagiri Babu Vs Union of India

The Managing Director Vs M.Pechimuthu

Ken Vander Weele Vs Small Industries Development Bank of India