Allowed

P.N.J. Nagarajan v. the Commissioner

Madras HC8 Dec 2022WP(MD)/18307/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench allowed the petitioner's writ petition. It held that since the building was in the petitioner's occupation, the authority should have invoked Section 344 instead of 327(1). It also found the proceedings arbitrary and initiated merely to facilitate eviction by a neighbor.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 30.10.2013 invoking Section 327(1) of the City Municipal Corporation Act is set aside.

P.N.J. Nagarajan Vs the Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.18307 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 08.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P(MD)No.18307 of 2013 and

¶7

M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013

¶8

P.N.J.Nagarajan ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Commissioner, Trichirappalli City Municipal Corporation, Trichirappalli.

¶11

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Ariyamangalam Division, Trichirappalli Municipal Corporation, Trichirappalli.

¶12

3.B.Mohammed Ibrahim

¶13

4.Maheswari Vaiyapuri ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned notice dated 30.10.2013 made in Na.Ka.No.8389/2013/F1/Ariya issued by the 2^nd respondent and quash the same.

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

W.P(MD)No.18307 of 2013

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Arun Jaytram For R1 & R2 : Mr.Baskaran For R3 & R4 : No Appearance

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a Memo stating that the petitioner had taken back the bundle along with change of vakalat. There is no fresh vakalat on behalf of the petitioner.

¶21

Mr.Sankar Sommusam, learned counsel had filed vakalat for 3^rd respondent and Mr.B.S.Meltiue, learned counsel has filed vakalat for 4^th respondent. None appears before this Court. Mr.Baskaran, learned counsel had appeared for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶22

Considering the case on hand, notice to the petitioner is dispensed with.

¶23

The order impugned in the writ petition is an order invoking the power under Section 327 (1) of the City Municipal Corporation Act.

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

W.P(MD)No.18307 of 2013

¶27

A perusal of the impugned order would show that the building

¶28

in question was in dilapidated condition. It is also seems that an enquiry has been conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and pursuant to the same, the impugned proceedings have been initiated invoking the provisions of Section 327 (1). Section 327 (1) deals that if the Commissioner deems that a structure is in ruinous state or dangerous to passers-by or to the occupiers of neighbouring structures, then he can require the owner or occupier to fence off, take down, secure or repair such structure so as to prevent any danger therefrom. Section 344 deals with cases where if any building or portion that is used as a dwelling place appears to the commissioner to be unfit for human habitation. Then, he may apply to the standing committee to prohibit the further use of such building for such propose and the standing committee after giving the owner and occupiers, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why such order should not be made, make a prohibitory order as aforesaid.

¶29

In the present case, the building in question is admittedly in occupation of the petitioner. In such cases, the authority could only invoke the provisions of Section 344 and not Section 327.

¶30

3/5

¶31

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

¶32

W.P(MD)No.18307 of 2013

¶33

I am of the view that the impugned proceedings in this writ

¶34

petition is nothing but an arbitrary exercise of power. I also come to such conclusion in view of the counter affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent, wherein I find that the proceedings have been initiated at the instance of the 3^rd respondent. Such a procedure adopted is a ruse to get over the civil remedy available to the 3^rd respondent to evict the petitioner.

¶35

In view of the same, this Writ Petition stands allowed and the

¶36

order impugned in the writ petition is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶37

08.12.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No gbg

¶38

4/5

¶39

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

¶40

W.P(MD)No.18307 of 2013

¶41

K.KUMARESH BABU,J.

¶42

gbg

¶43

Order made in W.P(MD)No.18307 of 2013

¶44

Dated: 08.12.2022

¶45

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.N.J. Nagarajan v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.N.J. Nagarajan v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maathooran, S/O Kalasalingam, Vs the District Collector

Sengutuvan, Vs the Managing Director

Mrs. Kursheed Sharfudeen, Vs the Commissioner

B.Sangeethkumar Vs the District Collector

M. Amulnathan, Vs the District Collector

M/S. Bhartiya Parivahan Vs the Bharath Heavey Electricals