Dismissed

R. Henry Thomas, v. the Commissioner

Madras HC1 Dec 2023WP(MD)/5871/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court held that since the petitioner had already approached the civil court by filing a suit challenging the same notice, the present remedy was not maintainable. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no costs awarded; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

R. Henry Thomas, Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.5871 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.12.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

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

¶6

W.P(MD)No.5871 of 2013 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013

R.Henry Thomas

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner Thoothukudi Corporation, Thoothukudi.

¶11

2.The Member Secretary (I/c), Thoothukudi Local Planning Authority, No.51, West Car Street, Thoothukudi - 2. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to

¶13

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

¶14

W.P(MD)No.5871 of 2013

¶15

the impugned notice passed by the second respondent in his Proceedings in C.No.394/2013 TULPA dated 03.04.2013 and quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Malaiyendran

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjad Khan

¶18

Government Advocate

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

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

¶21

We have heard Mr.V.Malaiyendran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Amjad Khan, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents.

¶22

The petitioner is challenging the notice, dated

¶23

03.04.2013.

¶24

The learned Government Advocate for the Corporation submits that after the impugned notice was issued, further notice under Section 56 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act,

¶25

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

¶26

W.P(MD)No.5871 of 2013

¶27

1971 was issued on 19.04.2013 and thereafter, notice under Section 56(2B) was also issued. The petitioner challenged the same by filing a suit. The said suit was dismissed in the year 2016. The appeal filed against the same was also dismissed in the year 2020.

¶28

As the petitioner had already resorted to the remedy of the suit, the present Writ Petition would not be maintainable.

¶29

Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶30

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

[S.V.G., C.J.] [L.V.G., J.] 01.12.2023

¶32

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶33

¶34

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

¶35

W.P(MD)No.5871 of 2013

¶36

¶37

1.The Commissioner

¶38

Thoothukudi Corporation, Thoothukudi.

¶39

2.The Member Secretary (I/c), Thoothukudi Local Planning Authority,

¶40

No.51, West Car Street,

¶41

Thoothukudi - 2.

¶42

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

¶43

W.P(MD)No.5871 of 2013

¶44

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

¶45

¶46

W.P(MD)No.5871 of 2013

¶47

01.12.2023

¶48

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

R. Henry Thomas, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Henry Thomas, 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

G. Selestine, President Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

S. Palanichamy Goundar, Vs the President

Jeyabarathi Vs the Commissioner

Balamurugan .P Vs The District Collector

S.Shanmugam Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Ramesh Vs State Rep. by The District Collector