Dismissed

R.Kasthuri, v. The Chennai Corporation

Madras HC8 Aug 2024WP/17298/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging refusal of permission to set up a bunk shop near Independence Park, Nanganallur. Petitioner opted to apply afresh to the newly constituted Town Vending Committee. The Court dismissed the petition and directed the Committee to consider the fresh application on merits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty to file fresh application to Town Vending Committee within two weeks, to be decided on merits within three months.

R.Kasthuri, Vs The Chennai Corporation — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.17298 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08.08.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

W.P.No.17298 of 2016

R.Kasthuri

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The Chennai Corporation By the Commissioner of Corporation Office of Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.

¶12

The Junior Engineer Ward – 167, Division – 37 Region – 12, Greater Chennai Corporation Alandur. Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶14

seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of second respondent dated 18.03.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to permit the petitioner to set up bunk shop near Independence Park at Nanganallur, Chennai.

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr.A.Vimal Mohan

¶16

For the Respondents : Mr.A.Arun Babu

¶17

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

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

W.P.No.17298 of 2016

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) The prayer sought in this writ petition is to call for the

¶22

records of the order of second respondent dated 18.03.2016, by way of a certiorarified mandamus, and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to set up a bunk shop near the Independence Park at Nanganallur, Chennai.

¶23

The impugned order reads thus:-

¶24

“kz;lyk; ? 12. thh;L ? 167 ? y; cs;s bgUefu brd;id khefuhl;rpf;F cl;gl;l rhiyfs; kw;Wk; g{';fhf;fspy; bgl;of;fil (Bunk) mikf;f mDkjp ju ,ayhJ vd;gij bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;fpnwhk;/”

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that unmindful of the challenge made in this writ petition, since eight years have gone now, the petitioner is intended to make a fresh application in the prescribed format to the Town Vending Committee and if such an application is filed, the same may be considered and decided on merits and in accordance with law. To such extent, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of

¶26

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

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

W.P.No.17298 of 2016

¶29

this Court.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that if any fresh application is filed in accordance with law, the same would be considered by the Town Vending Committee.

¶31

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and having regard to the submissions made by both side learned counsel, we are inclined to pass the following orders:-

¶32

(i) There has been no possible reason to challenge the impugned order, therefore, that challenge goes. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed;

¶33

(ii) Further, it is open to the petitioner to make a fresh application to the Town Vending Committee, which has been recently constituted, in the prescribed format within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and

¶34

(iii) If any such application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided by the Town Vending Committee, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from

¶35

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

¶36

Page 3 of 6

¶37

W.P.No.17298 of 2016

¶38

the date of such application.

¶39

With these directions, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.14776 and 14777 of 2016 are closed.

¶40

(R.S.K., J.) (A.D.J.C., J) 08.08.2024

¶41

Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶42

drm

¶43

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

¶44

Page 4 of 6

¶45

W.P.No.17298 of 2016

¶46

To:

¶47

The Chennai Corporation By the Commissioner of Corporation Office of Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.

¶48

The Junior Engineer Ward – 167, Division – 37 Region – 12, Greater Chennai Corporation Alandur.

¶49

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

¶50

Page 5 of 6

¶51

W.P.No.17298 of 2016

¶52

R. SURESH KUMAR, J. AND A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

(drm)

W.P.No.17298 of 2016

08.08.2024

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

¶57

Page 6 of 6

R.Kasthuri, v. The Chennai Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Kasthuri, v. The Chennai Corporation

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

P.Ramakrishnan Vs the Commissioner

V.Malarvannan Vs the Commissioner

M.Kuppan Vs The Chairperson / Executive Engineer