Allowed

A.Xavier sundarraj v. The Regional Director of Municipal

Madras HC6 Apr 2023WP/10620/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to correct an error in fixing Sanitary Usage Charges. The court found the rate to be erroneous compared to nearby shops and issued a mandamus to pass proper orders.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued to the 2nd respondent to hear the petitioner's representation dated 20.03.2023 and pass orders within six weeks.

A.Xavier sundarraj Vs The Regional Director… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.10620 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 06.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

W.P.No.10620 of 2023

¶7

A.Xavier Sundarraj ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, No.50, M.P. Sarathy Nagar, Kagithapattarai, Vellore – 632 012.

¶10

2.The Commissioner, Arcot Municipality, Arcot, Ranipet District. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.03.2023 and there by direct the respondents to correct the mistake in fixing the SUC (Sanitary Usage charges) i.e., instead of Rs.6,000/-, it has to be fixed as Rs.600/- per shop/per year, similar to the nearby shops.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Sundarapandiyan For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar Special Government Pleader

¶13

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

W.P.No.10620 of 2023

O R D E R

Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader accepts

¶18

notice for the respondents and is armed with instructions to enable a final disposal of the matter even now.

¶19

2.The petitioner, claiming to be the owner of a building entitled 'Antony Complex' at No.12, Arani Vandimedu Road, Arcot, Ranipet District (property in question), seeks a mandamus directing the respondents to consider his representation dated 20.03.2023 and correct the mistake in fixing Sanitary Usage Charges (SUC) at a sum of Rs.600/- per shop per year instead of Rs.6000/- as has been fixed now.

¶20

3.The petitioner points out that the rate of Rs.6000/- has been adopted in respect of 13 out of 16 shops in this complex, but in respect of the other 3, it has been fixed at Rs.600/- per shop per year. On enquiry, the petitioner has also come to understand that shops in the vicinity are being charged SUC at rates ranging between Rs.360/- to Rs.600/- per shop per year.

¶21

4.Despite approaching the 2^nd respondent, the Commissioner, Arcot Municipality/R2 several times highlighting the difference in rates, there has been no response. Hence, this writ petition.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

W.P.No.10620 of 2023

¶25

5.Mr.Sajeev Kumar, on instructions would fairly accede to the position

¶26

that there has been some error in fixing of the rate and he assures the Court and the petitioner that the representation will be looked into and the needful be done to ensure uniformity in fixation of the SUC. This is recorded and mandamus issued to R2 to hear the petitioner on representation dated 20.03.2023 and pass orders within a period of six (6) weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

6.This writ petition is disposed as above. No costs.

¶28

06.04.2023

¶29

vs Index : Yes / No Speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes

¶30

¶31

1.The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, No.50, M.P. Sarathy Nagar, Kagithapattarai, Vellore – 632 012.

¶32

2.The Commissioner, Arcot Municipality, Arcot, Ranipet District.

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

W.P.No.10620 of 2023

¶36

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH, J.

¶37

¶38

W.P.No.10620 of 2023

¶39

06.04.2023

¶40

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

¶41

A.Xavier sundarraj v. The Regional Director of Municipal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Xavier sundarraj v. The Regional Director of Municipal

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

M.Pappathi Vs The Commissioner

Atria Wind) Kadambur) P Ltd,Weg NO.257 Vs Thiru. RajeshLakhoni,I.a.S

M/S.Shakeel Ahmed Vs Asst.Commissioner of Cst and Central Excise

G.K.Reddy Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Dr.P.Raja Vs R.Chandrasekaran

M.Bharathi Vs The Vellore District Co-Operative Milk Producer