Disposed

S.Pandiaraj v. The Commissioner

Madras HC5 Sept 2024WP/20424/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking action on a decade-old complaint about an unlicensed bakery in a slum/residential zone. The court held the stale representation could not be considered and directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation; respondents were directed to conduct an enquiry after notice and hearing and pass orders on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to submit fresh representation within two weeks; respondents to conduct enquiry after notice to petitioner and third respondent and pass orders on merits.

S.Pandiaraj Vs The Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.20424 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05.09.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.20424 of 2015

¶7

S.Pandiaraj ... Petitioner Vs.

¶8

1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ribbon Building, Chennai 600 003 2.Assistant Commissioner, Zone No.10, Chennai Corporation, NSK Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai 3.Thomas ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER:

¶10

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to take action under Section 287, 289(B) and 270A of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, on the complaint of the petitioner dated 31.10.2014 and to remove the unlicensed bakery of the third respondent in a slum/residential zone.

¶11

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶12

W.P.No.20424 of 2015

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Prabahar For Respondents For R1 & 2 : Mr.G.T.Subramanian, Standing Counsel For R3 : Mr.P.Ganesan

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This writ petition has been filed f or direction to the

¶16

respondent to take action under Sections 287, 289(B) and 270A of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, on the complaint of the petitioner dated 31.10.2014 and to remove the unlicensed bakery of the third respondent in a slum/residential zone.

¶17

However, after period of 10 years, the representation submitted by the petitioner cannot be considered. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the first and second respondents are directed to conduct enquiry after issuance of notice to the petitioner and the third respondent and giving them opportunity of hearing, and to pass orders on merits and in accordane with law.

¶18

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶19

2/4

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.No.20424 of 2015

¶22

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

05.09.2024

¶24

Neutral Citation:Yes/No Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order lok

¶25

To 1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ribbon Building, Chennai 600 003

¶26

2.Assistant Commissioner, Zone No.10, Chennai Corporation, NSK Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai

¶27

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶28

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.20424 of 2015

lok

W.P.No.20424 of 2015

05.09.2024

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

S.Pandiaraj v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Pandiaraj 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.Vasanth Vs The District Collector

M/S. Oriental Lotus Hospitality Solutions Private Limited Vs the Joint Director

M/S. Abc Fruits, Vs the General Manager

E.Nilavarasan, Vs Chennai Metropolitan

M.Ranganathan Vs The State Rep. by its

Pappambadi Village Panchayat Vs The District Collector/