Disposed

R.Ghanshyam v. The Commissioner

Madras HC5 Nov 2024WP/7185/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Assistant Commissioner to consider a representation concerning unauthorized construction on specific properties. The court directed the Assistant Commissioner to examine the representation within six weeks, ensuring the third respondent's version is elicited.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Assistant Commissioner (South) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.10.2020 and dispose of it within six weeks, including requisitioning the third respondent.

R.Ghanshyam Vs The Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.7185 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.P.No.7185 of 2021

R.Ghanshyam

... Petitioner

1.The Commissioner, The Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings,

¶11

Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

¶12

2.The Assistant Commissioner (South), The Greater Chennai Corporation, Zone XIV, Puzhuthivakkam, Chennai – 600 091.

¶13

3.D.Anbalagan

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing 1^st and 2^nd respondents

¶16

to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.10.2020, consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to stop the unauthorized construction comprised in Survey No.229/3, situated at Sri Ambal

¶17

Page Nos.1/9

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.7185 of 2021

¶20

Nagar Annex, Plot Nos.41 and 42 ad-measuring to an extent of 1141 sq. ft. and 1140 sq. ft., No.129, Pallikaranai Village, Tambaram Taluk, presently Sozhinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, now Chennai District within the limits of the Greater Chennai Corporation.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramana Reddy

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.G.T.Subramanian Standing Counsel for R1 and R2 No appearance for R3

¶23

ORDER

¶24

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J .,]

¶25

Mr.V.Ramana Reddy, leaned counsel for writ petitioner, who is

¶26

before us, adverting to 21.10.2024 proceedings expresses regret for missing the matter in the previous listing before another Hon'ble Division Bench.

¶27

Be that as it may, as regards the captioned matter, learned counsel notwithstanding the expansive prayer abridges the same in the

¶28

Page Nos.2/9

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.7185 of 2021

¶31

hearing and submits that it will suffice if petitioner's representation dated 21.10.2020 is considered by R2.

¶32

Mr.G.T.Subramanian, learned standing counsel for Chennai Corporation (R1 and R2) is before us. R3 (private respondent) has entered appearance through counsel (Mr.J.Kamaraj and co-counsel), names of the counsel and co counsel are duly shown in the cause list but there is no representation.

¶33

Owing to the abridged prayer, as we can dispose of the WP preserving the rights of the third respondent and therefore, we proceed to do the same by taking up the WP with the consent of both sides.

¶34

Representation dated 21.10.2020 as placed before us is as

¶35

follows:

¶36

Page Nos.3/9

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.7185 of 2021

¶39

Page Nos.4/9

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.No.7185 of 2021

¶42

In the light of the abridged prayer which is being made by learned counsel for writ petitioner, R2 (The Assistant Commissioner (South), The Greater Chennai Corporation, Zone XIV, Puzhuthivakkam, Chennai – 600 091) shall now consider the aforementioned

¶43

Page Nos.5/9

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.No.7185 of 2021

¶46

representation dated 21.10.2020 on its own merits, in accordance with law and dispose of the same as expeditiously as the business of R2 would permit but in any event within six weeks from today i.e., by 17.12.2024.

¶47

Be that as it may, we make it clear that R2 while disposing of the aforementioned representation, shall requisition response of R3 and take into account the version of R3. This is the safety valve we are putting in as regards R3. We make it clear that all the rights and contentions of the writ petitioner as well as R3 are preserved for the purpose of R2 to dispose of the representation on its own merits and in accordance with law within the time frame that has been set out supra.

¶48

Captioned WP is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. No

¶49

costs.

¶50

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No mmi

¶51

Page Nos.6/9

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.No.7185 of 2021

¶54

¶55

1.The Commissioner, The Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

¶56

2.The Assistant Commissioner (South), The Greater Chennai Corporation, Zone XIV, Puzhuthivakkam, Chennai – 600 091.

¶57

Page Nos.7/9

¶58

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

¶59

W.P.No.7185 of 2021

¶60

M.SUNDAR, J., and K.RAJASEKAR,J.,

¶61

mmi

¶62

W.P.No.7185 of 2021

¶63

Page Nos.8/9

¶64

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

¶65

W.P.No.7185 of 2021

¶66

05.11.2024

¶67

Page Nos.9/9

¶68

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

R.Ghanshyam v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ghanshyam v. The 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

G.Malarkodi Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

Muthulakshmi Vs The District Collector

S.Subash Vs The District Collector

A.Heera Vs The District Collector

V.Ganesh Vs The Principal Secretary To governemnt

V.Venkatesan Vs The District Collector