Disposed

Sachin.E.M v. the Revenue Officer

Madras HC24 Apr 2024WP/8839/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ of mandamus seeking direction to the Greater Chennai Corporation to consider the petitioner's representation regarding a hoarding. With consent of counsel, the court directed the first respondent to consider the representation on merits and pass orders in accordance with law within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

First respondent to consider representation dated 19.03.2024 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within twelve weeks.

Sachin.E.M Vs the Revenue Officer — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.8839 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24.04.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

W.P.No.8839 of 2024

Mr.Sachin E.M.

.. Petitioner

The Revenue Officer Hoarding Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Building Chennai 600 003

¶12

M/s 11 Media

¶13

represented by its Proprietor Mr.Rahmathulla No.17, 1^st Floor, Anderson Street Parrys, Chennai 600 001 .. Respondents

¶14

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1^st respondent to consider the representation dated 19.03.2024.

¶15

For Petitioner :: Ms.G.Janaki For Respondents :: Ms.Aswini Devi.K Standing Counsel for R1 Mr.P.Willson for M/s A.S.Kailasam

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.8839 of 2024

¶19

& Associates for R2

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

This writ petition is for issuing a mandamus directing the first

¶23

respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.03.2024.

¶24

The learned counsels appearing for the petitioner as well the

¶25

contesting second respondent have no objection for the first respondent being directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in the manner known to law.

¶26

Having regard to the limited scope of the prayer and the grievance expressed by the petitioner before this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions of the respective parties, we direct the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.03.2024 on merits and appropriate orders be passed in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶27

_____________ Page 2 of 4_

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.8839 of 2024

¶30

Index : yes/no Neutral citation : yes/no

¶31

(S.S.S.R.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 24.04.2024

¶32

¶33

¶34

The Revenue Officer Hoarding Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Building Chennai 600 003

¶35

Page 3 of 4

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.8839 of 2024

¶38

S.S.SUNDAR,J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR,J.

W.P.No.8839 of 2024

24.04.2024

_____________ Page 4 of 4_

¶43

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

Sachin.E.M v. the Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin.E.M v. the Revenue Officer

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

Roopesh Lakshmanan Vs The Secretary of Government

Sundaram Vs The President

R.Saravana Kumar Vs The District Collector

D.Ramesh Vs the Commissioner

Anitha Manivasagam, Vs the Commissioner

Thangaraj, Vs State Human Rights Commission