Disposed

M.Jayamani v. the Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC9 Aug 2024WP/22617/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Pollachi Municipality order; the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Government which remained undecided while the Municipality proceeded to lock and seal the premises. The Court directed the Government to dispose of the appeal on merits within eight weeks and restrained the Municipality from taking coercive steps till then.

What the court decided

AI extract

M.Jayamani Vs the Principal Secretary to Government — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP No.22617 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.D. KRISHNAKUMAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

¶8

WP No.22617 of 2024

¶9

1.M.Jayamani ... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶12

2.The Director,

¶13

Municipal Administration, No.75, Urban Administrative Building, Santhome High Road, M.R.C. Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028.

¶14

3.The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶15

4.The Joint Director of Town and Country Planning, Corporation Complex, Dr.Nanjappa Road, Coimbatore-18.

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

WP No.22617 of 2024

¶19

5.The Commissioner,

¶20

(Fully Additional Incharge) Pollachi Municipality, Pollachi-01, Coimbatore District.

¶21

6.J.Krishnakumar ...Respondents

¶22

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the fifth respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.4422/2023/G1, dated 04.07.2024 and quash the same.

¶23

For the Petitioner :Mr.A.Arulmozhimaran For the Respondents :Mr.T.K.Saravanan Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 4 Mr.B.Anand, Standing Counsel for fifth respondent

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(Made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)

¶26

By consent of parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶27

The writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the fifth

¶28

respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.4422/2023/G1, dated 04.07.2024.

¶29

2/6

¶30

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

¶31

WP No.22617 of 2024

¶32

According to the petitioner, he has filed an appeal dated 08.07.2024 before the first respondent Government under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and also filed an application for stay of the further proceedings of the impugned order passed by the fifth respondent. But, so far, the first respondent has not passed any order. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that now action has been taken by the fifth respondent Municipality under Section 56 and 57 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act to lock and seal the premises in question, thereby the petitioner has been put to hardship. Therefore, he seeks for a stay of the further proceedings of the impugned order till the appeal is disposed of by the Government.

¶34

Learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality has not

¶35

disputed the aforesaid fact and they have also admitted that an appeal has been filed by the petitioner before the Government and the same is pending.

¶36

3/6

¶37

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

¶38

WP No.22617 of 2024

¶39

Considering the submissions of the parties concerned, we direct the first respondent Government to consider the said appeal dated 08.07.2024 preferred by the petitioner, on its own merits and in accordance with law, and to pass appropriate orders as early as possible, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the respondent Municipality shall not take any coercive steps.

¶40

The writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions.

¶41

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, WMP Nos.24645 and 24646 of 2024 are closed.

¶42

(D.K.K., ACJ.) (P.B.B., J.) 09.08.2024

¶43

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No mrn

¶44

4/6

¶45

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

¶46

WP No.22617 of 2024

¶47

¶48

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶49

2.The Director, Municipal Administration, No.75, Urban Administrative Building, Santhome High Road, M.R.C. Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028.

¶50

3.The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶51

4.The Joint Director of Town and Country Planning, Corporation Complex, Dr.Nanjappa Road, Coimbatore-18.

¶52

5.The Commissioner, (Fully Additional Incharge) Pollachi Municipality, Pollachi-01, Coimbatore District.

¶53

5/6

¶54

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

¶55

WP No.22617 of 2024

¶56

THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and P.B. BALAJI, J.

¶57

(mrn)

¶58

WP No.22617 of 2024

¶59

09.08.2024

¶60

6/6

¶61

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

M.Jayamani v. the Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M.Jayamani v. the Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Managing Director Vs R.Balakrishnan

Vaithilingam Vs the District Collector

V.Kumar Vs Greater Chennai Corporation

V.Elumalai Vs v.Vidyavathi

A.Suriya Vs Union of India

State of Tamil Nadu Vs N. Dhamotharan