Dismissed

A.Paranjothi v. The Commissioner

Madras HC13 Feb 2023WP/3978/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ThisOrderofMadrasHighCourtdismissedalignmentissueofwritPetitionNo3978of2023filedunderArticle226.referenceforMandamusdirectingRespondents.toconsiderarepresentationbythepetitionerregardingthefixingoffairrent.?Thedistressedcourt????????found.?μμα??????merit.in.?the.????.? petition.?due?to.?the.?futility?of.?the??relief.?claimed.?????.?Consequently.?the.?writ.permitted.?stands.?dismissed.?No.?costs.?a

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs awarded.

A.Paranjothi Vs The Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.3978 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 13.2.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.3978 of 2023

Petitioner

Vs.

1 The Commissioner,

¶11

Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Department, 119 Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.

¶12

2 The Joint Commissioner-1, Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Department, 128, Yadaval Street, Padi, Chennai 50.

¶13

3 The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Ellaiamman Thirukoil, Periamet, Chennai-3. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider my representation dated 11/07/2022 in accordance with law on merits within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Senthilkumaran For Respondents : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Spl.G.P. ******

¶16

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

1/4

W.P.No.3978 of 2023

O R D E R

Writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.7.2022 and pass orders on merit.

¶21

According to the petitioner, fair rent has not been fixed even though the petitioner gave representation to consider his request before fixing the fair rent. According to the petitioner, fair rent has been fixed in the year 2017 itself. Thereafter, on 23.2.2017, notice also issued after fixing the fair rent. Again, on 24.1.2020 notice has been issued directing the petitioner to pay arrears amount. Again on 27.5.2022, the third respondent issued notice to the petitioner directing the petitioner to appear before the third respondent on 13.6.2022. The petitioner sent representation on 13.6.2022 requesting the third respondent to remeasure the property and after considering the objection of the petitioner, fix the fair rent to the property.

¶22

Whereas, the letter produced by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents addressed by the third respondent, indicate that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.4,03,530/-. A perusal of the records produced by the petitioner indicate that fair rent has been fixed in the year 2017 itself and notice also has been served on the petitioner.

¶23

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

¶24

2/4

¶25

W.P.No.3978 of 2023

¶26

Such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that mere

¶27

directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and fix the fair rent will not serve any purpose. Therefore, this Court find no merit in the

¶28

writ petition.

¶29

Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶30

13.02.2023

¶31

Neutral Citation: Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order Index: Yes/No vaan

¶32

1 The Commissioner, Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Department, 119 Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.

¶33

2 The Joint Commissioner-1, Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Department, 128, Yadaval Street, Padi, Chennai 50.

¶34

3 The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Ellaiamman Thirukoil, Periamet, Chennai-3.

¶35

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

¶36

3/4

¶37

W.P.No.3978 of 2023

¶38

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶39

vaan

¶40

W.P.No.3978 of 2023

¶41

Dated: 13.2.2023

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

A.Paranjothi v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Paranjothi v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Ameen Ahamed Vs The District collector

Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd., Vs State Industries Promotion

S.Ravindran Vs The Director of Town and Country Planning

E.S.Ramachandran Vs the Commissioner

The President Vs TamilNadu Wakf Board

M/S.Alleance Orchid Mall Pvt. Vs the Industries Commissioner