Disposed

Bala Evelyne Lina v. the Commissioner

Madras HC5 Apr 2024WP/9331/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A house in Puducherry was locked and sealed by the municipality on the ground of unauthorised use. The owner tendered an apology and undertook to pay penalty or levy. The writ petition was disposed of directing removal of the lock and seal subject to that undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to remove lock and seal on petitioner's house forthwith, subject to undertaking to pay penalty/levy permissible in law.

Bala Evelyne Lina Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.9331 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.04.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR

¶8

W.P.No.9331 of 2024

Bala Evelyne Lina

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner, Puducherry Municipality, Puducherry.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to remove the lock and seal affixed on the petitioner's house situated at No.64, Kattamanikuppam Street, Muthialpet, Puducherry – 605 003.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondent : Mr.A.Tamilvanan Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry)

¶16

Page 1

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.9331 of 2024

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

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

¶21

This writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct

¶22

the respondent to remove the lock and seal affixed on the petitioner's house situated at No.64, Kattamanikuppam Street, Muthialpet, Puducherry – 605 003.

¶23

2.The petitioner is a permanent resident of France. However, she is a native of Puducherry, where she owns a house at No.64, Kattamanikuppam Street, Muthialpet, Puducherry – 605 003. It is the case of the petitioner that she had handed over her residential house to her friends and relatives for maintaining the house in her absence. However, the petitioner was surprised to find that the petitioner's premises was put under lock and seal, without her knowledge, under the pretext that the petitioner's building was used for unlawful and unauthorised purposes. Though the petitioner is fully responsible for using the house for unauthorised purposes, the petitioner has

¶24

Page 2

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.9331 of 2024

¶27

now given an undertaking before the respondent that she will face the consequences legally and that she will not permit the building to be used for any unauthorised purpose. She has also submitted a representation to the respondent acknowledging the fact that the building was put to unauthorised use, and requesting the officials to recall the order.

¶28

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before this Court submits that the petitioner is now willing to pay any penalty for the unlawful use of the premises. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner's request is only to permit her to use the building for lawful purposes with an assurance that she will not use the building for any other purpose than permissible in law. The petitioner has also tendered an apology before the respondent and requested the respondent to remove the lock and seal, even in her written representation dated 06.12.2023. The same is recorded as binding.

¶29

4.Learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry), on instructions, submitted that the respondent may be directed to de-seal the

¶30

Page 3

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.9331 of 2024

¶33

premises provided the petitioner gives an undertaking to pay the penalty or

¶34

any other levy for the unauthorised use of the building earlier.

¶35

5.It is in the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to remove the lock and seal affixed on the petitioner's house, forthwith, subject to the undertaking given by the petitioner before this Court that she will pay the penalty or any other levy, if it is permissible in law, for the unauthorised use of the building earlier. No costs.

¶36

(S.S.S.R., J.) (N.S., J.) 05.04.2024

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

The Commissioner, Puducherry Municipality, Puducherry.

¶40

Page 4

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.9331 of 2024

¶43

S.S. SUNDAR, J. and N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.

¶44

mkn

¶45

W.P.No.9331 of 2024

¶46

Page 5

¶47

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

W.P.No.9331 of 2024

05.04.2024

Page 6

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

Bala Evelyne Lina v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bala Evelyne Lina 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

N.Suryakumari (Senior Citizen) Vs M.Rajeswari

Shantha Srinivasan Vs The Secretary to Government

Vijayalakshmi Sridharan Vs the Commissioner

Abitha Begum Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Dr.R. Nagarajan Vs the Secretary to Government

V.Ragavi Vs K.Deepa