Disposed

Vijayalakshmi Sridharan v. the Commissioner

Madras HC15 Apr 2024WP/10116/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenging unauthorized construction by the 4th respondent. Respondents informed that a Stop Work Notice was issued. The court disposed of the petition directing respondents to take further action in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate further action in accordance with law regarding the unauthorized construction.

Vijayalakshmi Sridharan Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.10116 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 15.04.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR

¶8

W.P.No.10116 of 2024

¶9

Vijayalakshmi Sridharan ... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai – 600 003.

¶12

2.The Zonal Officer-13, Zone-13, Greater Chennai Corporation, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.

¶13

3.The Assistant Engineer, Five Furlong Road, Chennai Corporation Office, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶14

4.Gunaseelan ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to

¶16

Page 1

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.10116 of 2024

¶19

consider and dispose of the petitioner's both representations dated 24.01.2024 and 05.03.2024 in accordance with law.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.G.V.Sridharan For R1 to R3 : Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu Standing Counsel

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by S.S. SUNDAR, J. )

¶23

This writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct

¶24

the respondents 1 to 3 to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representations dated 24.01.2024 and 05.03.2024.

¶25

2.In the representation of the petitioner, the petitioner has stated that the 4^th respondent, without providing sufficient space in all the four sides of his plot, is putting up construction, despite objection raised by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted representation to the official respondents to take immediate action to stop the unauthorised construction being put up by the 4^th respondent.

¶26

Page 2

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.10116 of 2024

¶29

3.Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu, learned Standing Counsel who takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3, states that Stop Work Notice has already been issued to the 4^th respondent and the respondents 1 to 3 will take appropriate action as against the unauthorised construction in the manner known to law, after following the procedure and giving sufficient opportunity to the 4^th respondent.

¶30

4.Recording the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate further action in accordance with law. No costs.

¶31

(S.S.S.R., J.) (N.S., J.) 15.04.2024

¶32

mkn Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶33

Page 3

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.10116 of 2024

¶36

¶37

1.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai – 600 003.

¶38

2.The Zonal Officer-13, Zone-13, Greater Chennai Corporation, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.

¶39

3.The Assistant Engineer, Five Furlong Road, Chennai Corporation Office, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶40

Page 4

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.10116 of 2024

¶43

S.S. SUNDAR, J. and N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.

¶44

mkn

¶45

W.P.No.10116 of 2024

¶46

15.04.2024

¶47

Page 5

¶48

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

Vijayalakshmi Sridharan v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayalakshmi Sridharan 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

C.Arumugam Vs The Chairman

N.Anandan Vs Arakkonam Ganesh Nagar Residents Welfare Association

Arakkonam Ganesh Nagar Residents Welfare Association Vs The Secretary to Government

Eicl Ltd., Vs The National Green Tribunal

K.Pakkirisamy Vs Shankar

M.Vinoth Vs Shalick