Disposed

Sengamedu Seshagirirao Vyasaraj v. The Commissioner

Madras HC14 Feb 2023WP(MD)/908/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed against the Tiruchirapalli City Corporation for demolition of a dilapidated building threatening safety. The court directed the Commissioner to inquire into the matter, hear affected parties, assess structural soundness, and pass a final order within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Commissioner to inquire into the application, hear affected parties, assess structural soundness, and pass a final order on merits within 12 weeks.

Sengamedu Seshagirirao Vyasaraj Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.908 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 14.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.908 of 2023

¶7

Sengamedu Seshagirirao Vyasaraj

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.The Commissioner, Tiruchirapalli City Corporation, Bharathidasan Salai, Tiruchirapalli - 620 006.

¶11

2.The Joint Commissioner, Tiruchirapalli City Corporation, Bharathidasan Salai, Tiruchirapalli - 620 006.

¶12

3.S.Rengarajan 4.S.Sathyamurthy 5.S.Jayalakshmi ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to take appropriate legal action, with respect to the property bearing No.184 West chitra street, Srirangam so as ensure safety to life and limb of the inmates and neighbors of the said property, by initiating appropriate action for demolition of the said dangerous building under Thiruchirapalli Municipal Corporation Act or under any other law for the time being in force.

¶14

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

¶15

1/4

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan For Respondents : Mr.Kishore Ram for M/s.R.B.Associates for R.1 & R.2

¶17

W.P(MD)No.908 of 2023

¶18

Mr.T.Leninkumar for R.3 to R.5

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶21

2.The petitioner complains that the petition mentioned residential buildings have become old and dilapidated and unfit for human habitation. He wants the Corporation to take action on his representation for demolishing the

¶22

same.

¶23

3.The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents sought time to file counter affidavit. He alleged that the petitioner had put up an unauthorised construction and since the private respondents obtained interim injunction, the present writ petition has been filed as a counter blast. The writ petitioner might as well have motive for filing the writ petition. But then on that account I cannot nonsuit him. The petitioner has given a representation that the existence of the old structure is having safety implications. The corporation authority has to necessarily enquire into the matter. I make it clear that I have

¶24

not gone into the merits of the matter. I have not given any positive direction

¶25

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

¶26

2/4

¶27

W.P(MD)No.908 of 2023

¶28

for demolition as such. I am only calling upon the first respondent to enquire into the petitioner's application and pass final order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent shall hear the private respondents and other affected persons before passing any order. The Corporation authority has to necessarily satisfy himself about structural soundness before passing any order.

¶29

4.This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

14.02.2023

¶31

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No MGA

¶32

¶33

1.The Commissioner, Tiruchirapalli City Corporation, Bharathidasan Salai, Tiruchirapalli - 620 006.

¶34

2.The Joint Commissioner, Tiruchirapalli City Corporation, Bharathidasan Salai, Tiruchirapalli - 620 006.

¶35

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

¶36

3/4

¶37

W.P(MD)No.908 of 2023

¶38

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶39

MGA

¶40

W.P(MD)No.908 of 2023

¶41

14.02.2023

¶42

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

Sengamedu Seshagirirao Vyasaraj v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sengamedu Seshagirirao Vyasaraj 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

Hemalatha.a.R Vs The Union of India

Muthu Vs The District Collector

Chinnapponnammal Vs The District Collector

Jawahar S Vs Elangovan

Deepan Chakravarthi Vs The District Collector

Panjavarnam. S Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu