Disposed

Sarojini. R v. the Commissioner

Madras HC11 Nov 2021WP(MD)/20229/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The ground Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by R. Sarojini. The court directed the first respondent Corporation to decide a vacancy remission petition and a request for underground drainage connection within three weeks, treating the drainage request as part of the same proceedings without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner directed to dispose of the 07.02.2018 representation and the request for underground drainage connection jointly within three weeks and to communicate the order within five days.

Sarojini. R Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD).No.20229 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P(MD).No.20229 of 2021

¶5

R.Sarojini ... Petitioner Vs.

¶6

1.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai - 20.

¶7

2.The Deputy Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai - 20.

¶8

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Zone II, Race Course Road, Madurai Corporation, Madurai - 20. ... Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pass orders on the vacancy remission petition dated 07.02.2018 in respect of Assessment No.115/046/01047 and further direct the respondents to provide underground drainage connection to the above property.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Srinivasan For Respondents : Mr.K.K.Kannan, Standing Counsel

¶11

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

In the captioned writ petition, writ petitioner has made a prayer which is in two limbs. One limb pertains to a simple mandamus to dispose of writ petitioner's representation dated 07.02.2018 pertaining to vacancy remission for writ petitioner's property at Door No.27, Lourdu Nagar 7th Street, K.Pudur, Madurai. The second limb seeks a direction to the respondents to provide underground drainage connection to this property.

¶14

2.Mr.K.K.Kannan, learned Standing Counsel for Madurai Corporation accepts notice on behalf of all the three respondents.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.Owing to the narrow compass on which the captioned matter

¶16

1/4

¶17

W.P(MD).No.20229 of 2021

¶18

turns and owing to the simple nature of the issue main writ petition is taken up with the consent of both sides.

¶19

Regarding the first limb, writ petitioner counsel

¶20

submits that vacancy remission request is traceable to Section 126 of Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act 1971, but learned Standing Counsel points out that vacancy remission under Section 127 is circumscribed by two facets. One is, writ petitioner cannot seek remission of more than 50% of tax and the other is, it has to be done in the half year concerned or the succeeding half year but not thereafter. However owing to the order I propose to make, I refrain myself from expressing any opinion on these aspects of the matter.

¶21

5.To be noted the aforementioned 07.02.2018 representation

¶22

of the writ petitioner as placed before this Court as part of the case file is as follows :

¶23

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

¶24

2/4

¶25

W.P(MD).No.20229 of 2021

¶26

6.As far as the second limb of the prayer is concerned, while writ petitioner counsel submits that writ petitioner's application for underground drainage connection is pending with the Madurai Corporation, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Corporation submits that the writ petitioner has to make a separate application. In the light of this controversy, while disposing of 07.02.2018 representation the first respondent shall also consider the petitioner's request to provide underground drainage connection (by treating it as part of representation) and pass orders on the same.

¶27

7.In the light of narrative thus far, captioned writ

¶28

petition is disposed of by making the following order : a) the first respondent shall dispose of writ

¶29

petitioner's aforementioned 07.02.2018 representation on its own merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as his business would permit and in any event within three weeks from today i.e., on or before 02.12.2021;

¶30

b) the respondent while disposing of the above representation shall also consider the writ petitioner's request for underground drainage connection for the property concerned (by treating it as part of representation) and pass orders on the same;

¶31

c)The aforementioned two aspects shall be dealt with in one common proceedings;

¶32

d)The proceedings/orders disposing of the representation (including the writ petitioner's request for underground drainage connection) shall be communicated to the writ petitioner under due acknowledgment within five working days from the date of disposal;

¶33

e) Though obvious it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any view or opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶34

8.Captioned Writ Petition is disposed of with above directives. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/-

¶35

Assistant Registrar (A.D.II)

¶36

// True Copy //

¶37

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

¶38

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶39

3/4

¶40

W.P(MD).No.20229 of 2021

¶41

¶42

¶43

The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai - 20. 2.The Deputy Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai - 20. 3.The Assistant Commissioner, Zone II, Race Course Road, Madurai Corporation, Madurai - 20 +1 CC to M/s.A.SRINIVASAN, Advocate ( SR-34116[F] dated 11/11/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.K.K.KANNAN, Advocate ( SR-34373[F] dated 12/11/2021 )

¶44

W.P(MD).No.20229 of 2021 11.11.2021

¶45

RD(30.11.2021) 4P 6C

¶46

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

¶47

4/4

Sarojini. R v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarojini. R v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Vs the Assistant Commissioenr

V.Mayandi Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Sree Karumariamman Granites Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Parvathipuram Udamuttu Dharmam Vs the Commissioner

Vivekanandan Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

Pandi Muniyandi, Vs the Joint Commissioner