Disposed

Y.Rethinabalan,S/O.Yesurethnam v. the Executive Officer

Madras HC2 Jan 2023WP(MD)/1369/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court directed the Executive Officer to consider the petitioner's application for building plan approval within four weeks, owing to statutory delay. The Second Respondent, a mortgagor, is awaiting a result from an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal regarding the property's sale.

What did the court decide?

Directed the First Respondent to consider the petitioner's building plan application and pass orders on merits within four weeks from receipt of the order.

Y.Rethinabalan,S/O.Yesurethnam Vs the Executive… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.1369 of 2018.

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 02.01.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.1369 of 2018

Y.Rethina Balan

... Petitioner

/vs./

1.The Executive Officer, Kumarapuram Town Panchayat, Kumarapuram, Kanyakumari District.

¶11

2.K.M.C. Stephenson (R2 has been impleaded vide order dated 16.09.2019)

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to grant building plan approval to the petitioner.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jackson For R1 : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader For R2 : No appearance

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD) No.1369 of 2018.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The writ petition is seeking for a Mandamus to direct the first respondent to grant building plan approval to the petitioner, based on his application dated 14.09.2017. Since no action has been taken, the petitioner had further made a representation on 25.11.2017. As no order has been passed, he had approached this Court with the instant writ petition.

¶20

2.Heard Mr.J.Jackson, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia, learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent and none appears for the second respondent.

¶21

3.The second respondent, who has impleaded himself as party to this writ petition, claims that he is the borrower from the Bank and on his failure to repay the amount, the Bank had auctioned his property, which has been purchased by the petitioner. According to him, he had filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and the same is pending. It is his case that he had also filed various other applications before the authorities.

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD) No.1369 of 2018.

¶25

4.I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties appearing on

¶26

either side.

¶27

5.The application of the petitioner has been kept pending for a very long time and it is the statutory duty of the first respondent to dispose of the applications filed by the respective parties within a time frame. The second respondent, who was impleaded, as on date has not got any order setting aside the sale of the property. In that event, I direct the first respondent to consider the applications submitted by the petitioner seeking for building plan approval and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

6.With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there

¶29

shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

Speaking	: Yes / No	02.01.2023
NCC	: Yes / No
Internet	: Yes / No
Index	: Yes / No
mm

¶31

3/4

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD) No.1369 of 2018.

¶34

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶35

¶36

¶37

The Executive Officer, Kumarapuram Town Panchayat, Kumarapuram, Kanyakumari District.

¶38

W.P.(MD) No.1369 of 2018

¶39

02.01.2023

¶40

4/4

¶41

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

Y.Rethinabalan,S/O.Yesurethnam v. the Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Rethinabalan,S/O.Yesurethnam v. the Executive Officer

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

R.Rayappan, Vs the District Revenue Officer

T.M. Subramanian, Vs the District Collector

Mariappan Vs the Chief Engineer

S.Senthilkumar Vs the Chief Information Commissi

Ibramisa, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

S.Peter Raj Vs The Chief Secretary to Government