Disposed

S. Palanichamy Goundar, v. the President

Madras HC30 Nov 2023WP(MD)/15721/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of this writ petition seeking mandamus to approach the Village Panchayat to approve a building plan pending for ten years. The court directed the respondent to decide the pending applications if not already done within six months, dismissing the order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to decide pending applications within six months if not already decided; otherwise order will not operate against respondents.

S. Palanichamy Goundar, Vs the President — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.15721 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 30.11.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.15721 of 2013

¶7

S.Palanichamy Goundar

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The President, Pulikutthy Village Panchayat, Pulikutthy, Theni District. ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to approve the petitioner's building plan for the shopping complex constructed in S.No.92/2AL in Pulikutthy Village in Theni District, by disposing the petitioner's applications dated 01.04.2010 and 05.01.2012 which are pending before him.

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 1 of 5_

¶13

W.P(MD)No.15721 of 2013

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Surianarayanan For Respondent : No Appearance

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

[Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶17

Heard Mr.R.Surianarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted application for approval of the building plan on 01.04.2010 and 05.01.2012. However, the same is not decided.

¶19

Ten years have lapsed, after the Writ Petition has been filed. The said applications may have been decided. In case, the said applications are not decided, then, the same may be decided in accordance with law, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed by this Court. However, if the applications are already decided, then, this order may not operate against the respondents.

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 2 of 5_

¶21

W.P(MD)No.15721 of 2013

¶22

Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶23

[S.V.G., C.J.] [L.V.G., J.]

¶24

30.11.2023

¶25

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶26

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 3 of 5_

¶28

W.P(MD)No.15721 of 2013

¶29

¶30

The President, Pulikutthy Village Panchayat, Pulikutthy, Theni District.

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 4 of 5_

¶32

W.P(MD)No.15721 of 2013

¶33

THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE and L.VICTORIA GOWRI , J.

¶34

¶35

W.P(MD)No.15721 of 2013

¶36

30.11.2023

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 5 of 5_

S. Palanichamy Goundar, v. the President

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Palanichamy Goundar, v. the President

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

Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Mahalinga Gandhi

Ramanathan Chettiar Vs Ganasambandam

Prithiviraj Vs Guru,S/O.Muniyasamy

L.Lourdusamy Vs The Tahsildar

L.Nagarajan Vs The Tahsildar

A.Jenin Vs The District Collector