Disposed

V.Sathya v. The Managing Director

Madras HC3 Jan 2022WP/13098/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a writ petition seeking directions to allot additional Slum Clearance Board tenements to enable the petitioner to fulfill a quota of cable TV connections previously allocated. The Court, noting the deceased status of the petitioner’s husband and subsequent re-registration, directed the authorities to consider the representation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.08.2020 on merits and pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks.

V.Sathya Vs The Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.01.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

W.P.No.13098 of 2020

V.Sathya

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, No.5, Kamaraja Salai,

¶10

Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶11

The Executive Engineer, Chennai Special Division I, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Semmancheri, Chennai 600 119.

¶12

The Estate Officer, Estate Office 10,

¶13

Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Semmancheri, Chennai 600 119.

¶14

The Managing Director,

¶15

Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, Dugar Towers, 6^th Floor,

¶16

Old No.34, New No.123, Marshalls Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. ...Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent 1 to 3 herein to allot 25 blocks of Slum Clearance Board Tenements at Ezhil Nagar, Perumbakkam, Chennai as per the representation of the petitioner dated 31.08.2020 so as to enable the petitioner to provide 2350 more connections to fulfill 3000 cable TV connection allotted by 4th Respondent vide order dated 20.08.2018 and pass.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Ravikumar

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajasekar

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1 to 3 herein to allot 25 blocks of Slum Clearance Board Tenements at Ezhil Nagar, Perumbakkam, Chennai as per the representation of the petitioner dated 31.08.2020, so as to enable the petitioner to

¶22

provide 2350 more connections to fulfil 3000 cable TV connection allotted by 4th Respondent vide order dated 20.08.2018

¶23

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and her husband were living in Surya Nagar, Kottur, Saidapet Taluk, on the banks of Adyar River for more than 30 years and the petitioner's husband was a licensed cable TV operator in that area, providing cable TV connection to the residents of Surya Nagar. During December 2015 flood, the entire locality of Surya nagar submerged in floods and therefore the Government of Tamil Nadu has allotted houses at Ezhil Nagar Slum Board quarters at Perumbakkam to the entire residents of Surya Nagar. He also had valid license for running cable TV services and also paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- for installing necessary equipments for the extension of cable connections to various residence in Perumbakkam and Ezhil Nagar. Since the 2^nd respondent threatened her husband to disconnect the cable, sent a representation to the 1^st respondent on 01.12.2016 seeking permission to provide cable TV services at Ezhil Nagar Housing Board, Perumbakkam, by issuing No Objection Certificate and the petitioner's husband also filed W.P.No.12321 of 2016 in that regard. Pursuant to the order of this Court, her husband was granted 3000 connections by the 4^th respondent, vide order dated 20.08.2018 for providing service to the subscribers in the said tenements. However, the 1^st respondent vide order dated 17.06.2019 granted only 650 connections in 7 blocks of the tenements. Hence, the petitioner's husband gave a representation dated 05.09.2019 to allot 25 more blocks to provide cable TV connections to residents.

¶24

While such being the position, the petitioner's husband died suddenly on 15.09.2019 and thereafter, the petitioner continuing to run the cable TV service as she has registered the same in her name. However since the petitioner's husband letter was unsigned, the same could not be processed and thereby, the petitioner is constrained to give a fresh letter dated 31.08.2020, in order to allot 25 more blocks. However, the said representation has not been considered till date. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶25

Though very many grounds have been raised, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would suffice if this Court issues direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.08.2020 and pass orders on the same within a particular time frame fixed by this Court.

¶26

5.The learned Government Advocate has no objection for said order being passed and he further submitted that the representation of the petitioner will be considered within a reasonable time as fixed by this Court.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid submissions, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case directs the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.08.2020 on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

¶33

1.The Managing Director,

¶34

Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,

¶35

No.5, Kamaraja Salai,

¶36

Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶37

2.The Executive Engineer,

¶38

Chennai Special Division I,

¶39

Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,

¶40

Semmancheri, Chennai 600 119.

¶41

3.The Estate Officer,

¶42

Estate Office 10, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Semmancheri, Chennai 600 119.

¶43

4.The Managing Director,

¶44

Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited,

¶45

Dugar Towers, 6^th Floor,

¶46

Old No.34, New No.123, Marshalls Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

¶47

+1cc to Mr.M.Rajasekar, Advocate, S.R.No.214

¶48

W.P.No.13098 of 2020

¶49

UM(CO) KKV/03/02/2022

V.Sathya v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Sathya v. The Managing Director

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

S.Vedamanickam Vs Shiv Das Meena I.A.S.

P.K.Shefi Vs The Director / Cs

R.Priya Vs the District Revenue Officer

63 Moons Technologies Ltd., Vs Secretariat of Lokpal

S.Shanthi Vs Murugesh I.A.S.

M.Kathavarayan Vs The Superintending Engineer