Disposed

Dr.v.Kumaran v. Tamil Nadu Housing Board

Madras HC13 Apr 2023WP/12142/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought to quash an order for recovering interest amounting to Rs.2,00,765/- relating to a cancelled housing allotment and forbid salary deduction. The high court disposed of the petition after clarifying that the allotment was cancelled and re-allotted to another person.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of the writ petition with no costs awarded against the respondents.

Dr.v.Kumaran Vs Tamil Nadu Housing Board — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.12142 of 2003

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 13.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.12142 of 2003

Dr.V.Kumaran

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep.by its Managing Director, Nandanam,

¶11

Chennai – 600 035.

¶12

2.Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Coimbatore Housing Unit, Rep.by its Manager – Sales & Allottee Service Office of the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Tatabad, Coimbatore – 641 012.

¶13

3.Director of Medical Education, D.M.S. Complex, Chennai – 600 018. ..Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the 2 nd respondent vide his letter No.H-7/11288/93 dated 13.11.2002 and quash the same consequently forbear the respondents either

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.12142 of 2003

¶18

in any way deducting any amount from the salary of the petitioner or collecting the alleged interest of Rs.2,00,765/- from the petitioner.

¶19

For Petitioner	: No appearance
For R1 & R2	: Mr.D.Veerasekaran For Tamil Nadu Housing Board
For R3	: Mr.T.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The order dated 13.11.2002 passed by the 2^nd respondent / Tamil

¶22

Nadu Housing Board is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

¶23

The writ petition was instituted in the year 2003 and now about 20

¶24

years lapsed.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents / Tamil Nadu Housing Board made a submission that the petitioner was allotted HIG House, No.B245 at Ganapathy Block I to IV on 20.08.1996. The details of the cost was intimated to the writ petitioner. The petitioner instead of paying initial deposit from the date of 21 days, he paid the amount in different dates inspite of the reminders sent by the Board on several dates. The petitioner had not taken over the house despite several letters sent by 2/5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.12142 of 2003

¶28

the Board. The petitioner has stated that due to financial crisis, he was unable to pay the monthly installments and committed continuous default in payment of installments. Since the petitioner had not paid initial deposit and also the monthly installments, he became a chronic defaulter and the allotment was cancelled long back by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Subsequently, the said flat was sold to another person.

¶29

In view of the fact that the allotment granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and it was re-allotted to some other person, the interest amount is sought to be recovered through the impugned order.

¶30

If at all any grievance exists as of now to the writ petitioner

¶31

regarding the interest portion, he is at liberty to approach the competent authorities.

¶32

As far as the allotment is concerned, it was cancelled and reallotted to some other person and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek further allotment of house in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.

¶33

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

¶34

3/5

¶35

W.P.No.12142 of 2003

¶36

With these clarifications, the writ petition stands disposed of. No

¶37

costs.

¶38

13.04.2023

¶39

Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No kak

¶40

¶41

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.

¶42

2.The Manager – Sales & Allottee Service, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Coimbatore Housing Unit, Office of the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Tatabad, Coimbatore – 641 012.

¶43

3.Director of Medical Education, D.M.S. Complex, Chennai – 600 018.

¶44

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

¶45

4/5

¶46

W.P.No.12142 of 2003

¶47

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶48

kak

¶49

W.P.No.12142 of 2003

¶50

13.04.2023

¶51

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

¶52

5/5

Dr.v.Kumaran v. Tamil Nadu Housing Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.v.Kumaran v. Tamil Nadu Housing Board

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

The State of Tamilnadu Vs The Principal and Secretary

S.Mayilathal Vs The Additional District

K.R.Suryakumar Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

M/S. Amaravathi Sri Venkatesa Vs the Superintending Engineer

N.Manikyaraju Vs the Tahsildar

M/s.Sri Kusuma Haranath Vs Appasamy Subramani