Disposed

Chandramouli v. the Corporation Commissioner

Madras HC16 Apr 2021WP(MD)/4306/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking action against the third respondent for unauthorized construction. Court permitted the Corporation to proceed with issuing notices and taking action under relevant laws, marking copies to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to avail of the copy of notices served on third respondent; Corporation directed to issue due notice and take action under relevant Act. Writ petition disposed of.

Chandramouli Vs the Corporation Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.4306 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.04.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

¶7

W.P.(MD) No.4306 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD) No.3488 of 2021

Chandramouli

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Corporation Commissioner Tiruchirappalli City Corporation Tiruchirappalli

¶12

2.The Corporation Assistant Commissioner Tiruchirappalli City Corporation Ponmalai Division, TVS Tollgate Tiruchirappalli-620 020

¶13

3.Thirumathi Divya

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.01.2021 and to take appropriate action against the third respondent.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.Madasamy.T.M.

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan for R1 & R2 (Standing Counsel for Thiruchirapalli City Municipal Corporation)

¶18

Mr.N.Ananthakumar for R3

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]

¶21

The petitioner, by way of this writ petition, seeks for action against the third respondent for the unauthorized construction, encroachment etc. made by her.

¶22

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

¶23

Page 1 of 2

¶24

W.P.(MD) No.4306 of 2021

¶25

2. Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, on instructions, submitted that on inspection, it was found that there was deviation of the approved plan and stop work notice was issued to the third respondent and the construction work has come to a standstill and further proceedings are being taken for issuing lock and seal notice.

¶26

3. In view of the above submission of the learned Standing Counsel, the respondent – Corporation is permitted to proceed in accordance with the relevant Act by issuing due notice to the third respondent and take action in accordance with law. It is made clear that in all such notices, a copy should be marked to the writ petitioner.

¶27

4. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶30

Krk

¶31

Note :

¶32

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.

¶33

+1 CC to M/s.N.S.KARTHIKEYAN, Advocate ( SR-16185[F] dated 17/04/2021 )

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.4306 of 2021 16.04.2021

¶35

RK (29.04.2021) 2P 2C

¶36

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

¶37

___________ Page 2 of 2

Chandramouli v. the Corporation Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandramouli v. the Corporation Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Director Vs J. Lidwin Jeyanthirani

Sri Manavala Mamunigal Trust Vs the Commissioner

Shanmugavalli.P Vs The Accountant General (a and E)

The Member Secretary, Vs S.Bharathan

V.Maheswari Vs v.Thalirkodi

K.Selvaraj Vs C.Susila