Dismissed

Sri Vanamamalai Mutt at v. the Superintending Engineer

Madras HC21 Jan 2022WP(MD)/13264/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted the petitioner's request to withdraw two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitions sought directions regarding the disconnection of electricity services and the removal of seals from buildings constructed without planning permission. The Writ Petitions were dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with permission granted to withdraw. No costs awarded.

Sri Vanamamalai Mutt at Vs the Superintending Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)Nos.13264 of 2013 and 11039 of 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.01.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

W.P(MD)Nos.13264 of 2013 and 11039 of 2015 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015 in W.P(MD) No.11039 of 2015

¶7

W.P(MD)No.13264 of 2013

¶8

Sri Vanamamalai Mutt at Nanguneri represented by its present Madathipathi H.H.Vanamamalai Ramanuja Jeer Swamigal of Vanamamalai Mutt having his Matam at Nanguneri Thirunelveli District 627 108 represented by his Special Power Agent P.Appathurai Iyengar

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

vs.

¶11

1. Superintending Engineer, Electricity Madurai Metro Circle, K.Pudur, Madurai.

¶12

Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution, Metro Circle, Subramaniyapuram, Madurai-1.

¶13

1. Assistant Engineer, Electricity Distribution/Metro Circle, Subramaniyapuram, Madurai-1.

¶14

1. P.Ramachandran

¶15

1. L.Santhanakrishanan

¶16

1. T.Mahamani

¶17

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

¶18

Page 1/4

¶19

W.P(MD)Nos.13264 of 2013 and 11039 of 2015

¶20

R.M.Ilangovan

¶21

C.Karuppasamy

¶22

N.Gunasekaran ... Respondents

¶23

(R6 to R9 are impleaded vide court order dated 27.03.2018 in WMP(MD) Nos.8720/17 and 1013/18)

¶24

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to disconnect the service connections given to D.No.48 A and D.No.49 of Nambillai Sannathi Temple, Kodal Alagar Perumal Kovil Street, Madurai belonging to Sri Vanamamalai Mutt in SB 716, SB 1747, SB 1623, SB 1624, SB 1625 and new three phase connection given on 11.04.2013 in the name of 4^th respondent herein and connection in SB 1857 given in the name of the 5^th respondent.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.Arun For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha For R4 : Mr.C.Jeganathan For R6 to R8 : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam For R9 : Mr.K.V.Ravichandran

¶26

W.P(MD)No.11039 of 2015

¶27

Mr.R.Appadurai Ayyengar ... Petitioner

¶28

vs.

¶29

The Chairman/District Collector, Madurai Local Planning Authority, Madurai District.

¶30

The Member Secretary, Madurai Local Planning Authority, Madurai District.

¶31

P.Ramachandran

¶32

1. S.Mariappan

¶33

S.Karuppasamy

¶34

T.Mahamani

¶35

1. The Madurai Corporation, Through its Commissioner, Madurai.

¶36

... Respondents

¶37

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and

¶38

Page 2/4

¶39

W.P(MD)Nos.13264 of 2013 and 11039 of 2015

¶40

2 to take appropriate action by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 27.02.2014 and reminder dated 28.01.2015 with regard to the removal of seal and lock in the building in Door No.49, Koodal Azhagar Perumal Kovil Street, Madurai as against the respondents 3 to 6 for constructing building without planning permission as per the provisions of Sections 56, 57 and 88 of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

¶41

For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.Arun For R1 & R2 : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader For R3 to R6 : Mr.C.Jeganathan For R7 : Mr.R.Murali

¶42

COMMON ORDER

¶43

(Order of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. )

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw these writ petitions. He has addressed letters dated 06.01.2022 to the Registrar(Judicial) to that effect.

¶45

Permission is granted. Recording the letters dated 06.01.2022, the Writ Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/-

¶46

Assistant Registrar (AE)

¶47

// True Copy //

¶48

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶49

Bala

¶50

¶51

1)The Superintending Engineer, Electricity Madurai Metro Circle, K.Pudur, Madurai.

¶52

2)The Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution, Metro Circle, Subramaniyapuram, Madurai-1.

¶53

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

¶54

Page 3/4

¶55

W.P(MD)Nos.13264 of 2013 and 11039 of 2015

¶56

3)The Assistant Engineer, Electricity Distribution/Metro Circle, Subramaniyapuram, Madurai-1.

¶57

The Chairman/District Collector, Madurai Local Planning Authority, Madurai District.

¶58

The Member Secretary, Madurai Local Planning Authority, Madurai District.

¶59

+2 CC to M/s.A.V.ARUN, Advocate ( SR-2066[F] & SR-2067[F]dated 21/01/2022 )

¶60

+2 CC to M/s.VEERA ASSOCIATES, Advocate ( SR-2143[F]& SR-2145[F] dated 24/01/2022 )

¶61

+1 CC to M/s.R.Murali, Advocate ( SR.No.2006)

¶62

+1CC to SPL.GP(SR.No.2349) W.P(MD)Nos.13264 of 2013 and 11039 of 2015 DATED : 21.01.2022

¶63

MGJ(17.02.2022) 4P 12C

¶64

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

¶65

Page 4/4

Sri Vanamamalai Mutt at v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vanamamalai Mutt at v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muthukumar Vs the Manager (Technical)

Gunasekaran Vs the Manager (Technical)

C.Rengaraj Vs the Chief General Manager

Natrayan.P Vs the Commissioner

M/S Vino Agencies Vs the General Manager

Mahalakshmi Vs the Authorized Officer