Dismissed

K.Sathyam, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC3 Jan 2023WP/31319/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ directing the Corporation of Chennai to approve reconstruction of a dilapidated compound wall. The Court noted the Commissioner had already issued a No Objection Certificate. It held the dispute was a private matter between the petitioner and the Assistant Commissioner, excluding the writ court's jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no costs. The petitioner is informed that the remedy lies elsewhere given the private nature of the dispute.

K.Sathyam, Vs The Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Writ Petition No.31319 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 3/1/2023

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

Writ Petition No.31319 of 2014

K. Sathyam

... Petitioner

The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Ripon Buildings Chennai 600 003.

¶11

M. Durgadoss

¶12

The Assistant Commissioner Zone X Chennai Corporation ... Respondents

¶13

(R. 3- Suo motu impleaded as per order, dated 20/8/2015 by NKKJ in W.P.No.31319 of 2014)

¶14

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16/9/2014 and in conseqence, to give “No Objection/Approval letter” to reconstruct the petitioner dilapidated compound wall as per the planning approval Rules and Regulations, for the plot situated in No.290/1, 7^th Sector, 36^th Street, K.K.Nagar, Chennai 600 078.

¶15

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

¶16

Page No:1/4

¶17

Writ Petition No.31319 of 2014

¶18

For Petitioner ... Mr.D.Gopal For respondents ... Mrs.P.T.Ramadevi Standing Counsel for R.R.1 and 3 Mr.L.Rajasekar for R.2.

¶19

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This writ petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to

¶22

consider the petitioner's representation, dated 16/9/2014 and to give “No Objection/Approval letter” to the petitioner to reconstruct the dilapidated compound wall, as per the planning approval Rules and Regulations, for the plot situated in No.290/1, 7^th Sector, 36^th Street, K.K.Nagar, Chennai 600 078.

¶23

Heard Mr.D.Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.P.T.Ramadevi, learned Standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 3 and Mr.L.Rajasekar, learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶24

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing

¶25

counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 submitted that the first respondent has already given No Objection certificate to the petitioner.

¶26

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

¶27

Page No:2/4

¶28

Writ Petition No.31319 of 2014

¶29

The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that despite No Objection Certificate issued by the first respondent, second respondent is still objecting the petitioner from constructing the compound wall.

¶30

After hearing both sides, what comes to be known is that dispute is between the petitioner and second respondent, which is purely a private dispute and the same cannot be canvassed in a writ Court. In such a view of the matter, as No Objection certificate is already issued by the first respondent, remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere and not before the writ Court.

¶31

In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶32

3/1/2023

¶33

Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order Neutral Citation: yes/No mvs.

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:3/4

¶35

Writ Petition No.31319 of 2014

¶36

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J

¶37

mvs.

¶38

¶39

The Commissioner

¶40

Corporation of Chennai

¶41

Ripon Buildings

¶42

Chennai 600 003.

¶43

The Assistant Commissioner Zone X Chennai Corporation

¶44

W.P.No.31319 of 2014

¶45

3/1/2023

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:4/4

K.Sathyam, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sathyam, 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

M.Narashiman, Vs the Commissioner

Sri Kasiviswanathar Temple Vs Hindu Religious & Charitable

Mohamed Sadiq Basha Vs The District Collector

Tmt.a.Sudha Arul Vs The Inspector of Panchayat/

P.Kannan Vs The Commissioner

M/S. Psvcpl-Bbipl-(Jv), Vs the Salem City Municipal