Partly allowed

J.Dharmasagaram v. Directorate of Municipal Administration

Madras HC19 Mar 2024WP/6936/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court restrained the 2nd respondent from taking coercive steps pending disposal of a statutory appeal by the 1st respondent and directed the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal on merits within 16 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the statutory appeal on merits within 16 weeks; restraining the 2nd respondent from taking coercive steps till then.

J.Dharmasagaram Vs Directorate of Municipal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.6936 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.03.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR

¶8

W.P.No.6936 of 2024 and

¶9

W.M.P.No.7733 of 2024

¶10

1.J.Dharmasagaran 2.D.Santhakumari

¶11

... Petitioners

¶12

Vs.

¶13

1.Directorate of Municipal Administration,

¶14

75, Urban Administrative Building, Santhome High Road, MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028.

¶15

2.The Commissioner, Kancheepuram Corporation, Kancheepuram.

¶16

3.K.R.Thiyagarajan

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider the

¶19

Page 1

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.No.6936 of 2024

¶22

petitioner's appeal dated 06.02.2024 and to regularise the petitioner's building situated at No.57B, Karikkinilamarnthaval Koil Street, Chinna Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District, by invoking Section 135 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, within the time that may be fixed by this Court.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gnanasekar For R1 : Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi Special Government Pleader

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

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

¶26

This writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner's appeal dated 06.02.2024 and to regularise the petitioner's building situated at No.57B, Karikkinilamarnthaval Koil Street, Chinna Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District, by invoking Section 135 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, within the time that may be fixed by this Court.

¶27

Page 2

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.6936 of 2024

¶30

2.The petitioner has preferred a statutory appeal before the 1^st respondent challenging the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Kancheepuram Corporation. A prayer is also made for further direction to the 2^nd respondent to regularise the building under Section 135 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998. The grievance of the petitioner is that the statutory appeal preferred before the 1^st respondent is not yet disposed of and that the 2^nd respondent has issued Form-2 Notice for inspection, dated 16.02.2024.

¶31

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2^nd respondent may be restrained from enforcing the demolition notice till such time the appeal filed by the petitioner is considered and disposed of on merits.

¶32

4.Having regard to the limited scope of the prayer now made by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's case, the 1^st respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, dated 06.02.2024. on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 16 weeks from the

¶33

Page 3

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.6936 of 2024

¶36

date of receipt of a copy of this order, and communicate the decision to the petitioner. The private respondent may also be heard by the 1^st respondent when the appeal is disposed of on merits. Till such time the 1^st respondent disposes of the appeal on merits, the 2^nd respondent shall not take any coercive steps.

¶37

5.With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No

¶38

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶39

(S.S.S.R., J.) (N.S., J.) 19.03.2024

¶40

mkn

¶41

Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶42

¶43

Page 4

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.No.6936 of 2024

¶46

1.The Directorate of Municipal Administration,

¶47

75, Urban Administrative Building, Santhome High Road, MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028.

¶48

2.The Commissioner, Kancheepuram Corporation, Kancheepuram.

¶49

S.S. SUNDAR, J. and

¶50

Page 5

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.No.6936 of 2024

¶53

N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.

¶54

mkn

¶55

W.P.No.6936 of 2024

¶56

19.03.2024

¶57

Page 6

¶58

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

J.Dharmasagaram v. Directorate of Municipal Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Dharmasagaram v. Directorate of Municipal Administration

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

H.Chandra Bose Vs The Commissioner

K.Jayakumar Vs the Principal Secretary

The District Collector Vs Nachiarammal

P.Velmurugan Vs The Additional Secretary

Dr.Geetha Devadas, Vs Ms.Kasturi

J.Dharmasagaram Vs Directorate of Municipal Administration