Disposed

B.Chinnammal v. The Chairman

Madras HC21 Dec 2022WP/34147/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition filed under Article 226 sought a mandatory order for the 1st respondent board to dispose of the petitioner's representation regarding her house allotment and the subsequent demolition order. The court directed the board to invite the petitioner for discussion and pass necessary orders before the deadline.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to issue notice to the petitioner, invite her for discussion, and pass necessary orders by 31.03.2023.

B.Chinnammal Vs The Chairman — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

W.P.No.34147 of 2022

B.Chinnammal

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Chairman,

¶11

Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, No.5, Kamarajar Salai,Chepauk,

¶12

Chennai - 600 005.

¶13

2.The Estate Officer,

¶14

Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, Division – VI,

¶15

Sivalingapuram, K.K.Nagar,

¶16

Chennai – 600 078.

¶17

3.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board,

¶18

Division – VI, Sivalingapuram, K.K.Nagar,

¶19

Chennai – 600 078.

¶20

.. Respondents

¶21

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to dispose the representation dated 26.11.2022.

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

2 For Petitioner .. Mr.D.Charles Muthushanthan For R1 to R3 .. Mr.G.Venkatesan, Standing Counsel

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This writ petition has been filed in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, seeking consideration of a representation dated 26.11.2022 given by the petitioner herein to the 1^st respondent.

¶26

2.In the affidavit filed, it had been stated that the petitioner was allotted a house flat at A Block, No.23, 14^th Street, Ashok Nagar, Chennai, on 23.07.2018 by the 1^st respondent. The petitioner claims that she had paid the necessary amount to the 1^st respondent. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent had taken a decision to demolish the houses, which were in dilapidated condition. The husband of the petitioner had also died on 17.03.2012.

¶27

3.The petitioner made an application through the Right to Information Act, on 04.11.2022 and it was stated that, only those who had paid the dues

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

¶30

and enjoying the premises are entitled for new house. The petitioner claimed

¶31

that she had been enjoying the said house, but since there had been continuous disturbance, a representation had given on 26.11.2022 to the 1^st respondent.

¶32

4.A direction is given to the 1^st respondent herein to issue notice to the petitioner on the basis of the representation given and invite the petitioner for discussion and then pass necessary orders. The said exercise is to be completed on 31.03.2023.

¶33

5.With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶34

No costs.

¶35

21.12.2022 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No smv

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

¶38

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

¶39

smv

¶40

¶41

1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, No.5, Kamarajar Salai,Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

¶42

2.The Estate Officer, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, Division – VI, Sivalingapuram, K.K.Nagar, Chennai – 600 078.

¶43

3.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, Division – VI, Sivalingapuram, K.K.Nagar, Chennai – 600 078.

¶44

W.P.No.34147 of 2022

¶45

21.12.2022

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

B.Chinnammal v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Chinnammal v. The Chairman

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

M/s Ace Intergrated Solutions Vs Food Corporation of India Ltd.

M/s. Kawarlal and Co. Vs The Deputy Drugs Controller (I)

T.S.Ramachandran Vs The Member Secretary

K.Senthil kumar Vs The District Revenue officer

Shri.L.Shanmugam, Vs The Joint Director General of

M.Palanisamy Vs The Thasildar