Disposed

K.Arumugapandi, v. the Commissioner

Madras HC16 Dec 2024WP/6221/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought mandamus directing Greater Chennai Corporation to demolish a dilapidated building belonging to the fourth respondent and police protection for the demolition. The Corporation's counsel admitted the building was dilapidated; the court disposed of the petition directing respondents 1 and 2 to act in accordance with law to remove it.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1 and 2 to take action in accordance with law to remove the dilapidated building; no costs.

K.Arumugapandi, Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.6221 of 2024

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

W.P.No.6221 of 2024

K.Arumugapandi

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner,

¶11

Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Building,

¶12

Chennai – 600 003.

¶13

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Zone-13, Greater Chennai Corporation, Adyar,

¶14

Chennai – 600 113.

¶15

The Inspector of Police,

¶16

J13, Tharamani Nagar Police Station,

¶17

Kanagam,

¶18

Tharamani,

¶19

Chennai – 600 113.

¶20

Saravanan

¶21

...Respondents

¶22

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶23

1/5

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.6221 of 2024

¶26

praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first and second respondents to demolish the dilapidated building of the fourth respondent situated at Door No.22, Anbalagan Nagar, Kannagai Street, Tharamani, Chennai – 600 113 comprised in the survey No.85/2, pursuant to the demolition notice issued by the second respondent dated 15.09.2023 and consequently direct the third respondent to provide adequate protection for the same.

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandra Kumar for Mr.R.Suryaprakash For : Mr. E.C.Ramesh Respondents (for R1 & R2) Mr.M.Babu Muthumeeran, Additional Public Prosecutor (for R3) No appearance (for R4)

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

(Order of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J .)

¶30

We have heard Mr.L.Chandra Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. E.C. Ramesh, the learned counsel for the first and second respondents and Mr. M.Babu Muthumeeran, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the third respondent.

¶31

2/5

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.6221 of 2024

¶34

This Writ Petition is for a Mandamus, directing the Corporation to take steps to demolish the dilapidated building found at Door No.22, Anbalagan Nagar, Kannagai Street, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113.

¶35

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third, fifth and sixth respondents would submit that the claim of the petitioner, that the building is in a dilapidated condition, is correct.

¶36

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to take action in accordance with law to remove the building, which is in a dilapidated stage, even according to them. No costs.

¶37

(R.S.M., J.) (C.K., J.) 16.12.2024 2/2

¶38

kv Index : Yes/No Speaking order /Non Speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes/No To

¶39

3/5

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.No.6221 of 2024

¶42

The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Building,

¶43

Chennai – 600 003.

¶44

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Zone-13, Greater Chennai Corporation, Adyar,

¶45

Chennai – 600 113.

¶46

The Inspector of Police, J13, Tharamani Nagar Police Station, Kanagam, Tharamani,

¶47

Chennai – 600 113.

¶48

4/5

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.No.6221 of 2024

¶51

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

¶52

¶53

W.P.No.6221 of 2024

¶54

16.12.2024 2/2

¶55

5/5

¶56

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

K.Arumugapandi, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Arumugapandi, 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

M/S.v.G.N.Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Member Secretary

S.Ramesh Vs State of Tamil Nadu

D.Ravi Vs the Special Tahsidar (La) Unit

Logeswari Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

K.Viswanadam Vs v.R.Kannan

Govindhan Vs Vana Urimai Kuzhu