Disposed

R.Ramakrishnan v. the Corporation Commissioner

Madras HC9 Dec 2024WP/37413/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the petitioner's request for an injunction pending consideration of representations, noting the petitioner might have an easement dispute better suited for civil courts. It directed statutory authorities to consider representations and act appropriately.

What did the court decide?

direction to respondents to consider petitioner's representations and initiate appropriate action; injunction request dismissed

R.Ramakrishnan Vs the Corporation Commissioner — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.37413 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.12.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

¶7

W.P.No.37413 of 2024

R.Ramakrishnan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Corporation Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation, Big Bazaar Street, Coimbatore – 641 001.

¶12

2.The Corporation Assistant Commissioner, The Corporation West Zone, Western Region, Coimbatore – 641 002.

¶13

3.K.Madhanakumari .. Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent and 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.11.2024 and 29.11.2024 and consequently, direct the 2^nd respondent to stop the unauthorised construction and initiate appropriate action to remove all illegal

¶15

Page 1

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.37413 of 2024

¶18

construction work carried on by the 3^rd respondent at Site No.81 (Plot No.81), Gurusamy Nagar, 4^th Layout, Survey No.232/2G1, 235/2, Ward No.38 (WEST ZONE), Vadavalli, Coimbatore, within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶19

For Petitioner : M/s.S.Vasavi Sridevi For R1 and R2 : Mr.N.Umapathi Standing Counsel for Coimbatore Corporation

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

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

¶22

This writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representations dated 15.11.2024 and 29.11.2024 and consequently, direct the 2^nd respondent to stop the unauthorised construction and initiate appropriate action to remove all illegal construction work carried on by the 3^rd respondent at Site No.81 (Plot No.81), Gurusamy Nagar, 4^th Layout, Survey No.232/2G1, 235/2, Ward No.38 (WEST ZONE), Vadavalli, Coimbatore.

¶23

Page 2

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.37413 of 2024

¶26

2.The grievance of the petitioner is that he had already submitted representations to the respondents 1 and 2 on 15.11.2024 and 29.11.2024. He also produced before this Court the information furnished by the Assistant Commissioner of Coimbatore Corporation stating that the 3^rd respondent has put up construction in violation of the building permission obtained. It is also stated that the Corporation has already taken action for the unauthorised construction. In these circumstances, the petitioner has come by way of the above writ petition.

¶27

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the official respondents, though have indicated that action had been taken against the unauthorised construction, have not stopped the construction and the construction has proceeded in violation of the approved plan. The learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to grant an injunction restraining the 3^rd respondent from proceeding with construction, while directing the respondents to consider petitioner's representations.

¶28

4.This Court is unable to countenance the submission of the learned

¶29

Page 3

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.37413 of 2024

¶32

counsel for the petitioner that there should be an order of injunction restraining the 3^rd respondent from proceeding with the construction till such time the representation of the petitioner is considered by the official respondents. This Court is not in a position to ascertain whether the 3^rd respondent has applied for revised plan or not. This Court is also unable to find from the pleadings, whether the construction by the 3^rd respondent is in violation of Building Regulations. The petitioner appears to be a neighbour and his grievance may be relating to side set back or other deviations affecting his right of easement. It is always open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief, in case his right of easement is affected by the offending construction. As regards the representation of the petitioner, the statutory authorities namely respondents 1 and 2 are required to consider whether the construction is in accordance with the approved plan or not.

¶33

5.Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representations dated 15.11.2024 and 29.11.2024 and initiate appropriate

¶34

Page 4

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.37413 of 2024

¶37

action if required after hearing the 3^rd respondent and pass appropriate orders

¶38

on merits and in accordance with law. No costs.

¶39

(S.S.S.R., J.) (P.D.B., J.) 09.12.2024

¶40

mkn

¶41

Internet : Yes Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes

¶42

¶43

1.The Corporation Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation, Big Bazaar Street, Coimbatore – 641 001.

¶44

2.The Corporation Assistant Commissioner, The Corporation West Zone, Western Region, Coimbatore – 641 002.

¶45

S.S. SUNDAR, J.

¶46

Page 5

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.No.37413 of 2024

¶49

and P. DHANABAL, J.

¶50

mkn

¶51

W.P.No.37413 of 2024

¶52

09.12.2024

¶53

Page 6

¶54

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

R.Ramakrishnan v. the Corporation Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ramakrishnan v. the Corporation 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

S.P. Meena Vs S. Palaniappan Chettiar

M/s. Shambhunath and Bros., Vs Jai Rajendra Impex Pvt. Ltd.

V. Selvaraj Alias v. Kakkanan Vs M. Anand Kumar

E.K. Sanjeevan Vs Vijayalakshmi

Chairman and Managing Director, Vs S. Anbalagan

Thirunavukarasu (Deceased) 1. Sundari Vs P. Usha Rani