Allowed

Rajesh Rahul.P v. the Commissioner

Madras HC7 Mar 2024WP(MD)/10238/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of the petitioner's license as Registered Engineer-III. Finding that the petitioner was denied a hearing before the impugned order, the Court set aside the cancellation and ordered a fresh inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order cancelled; petitioner directed to submit explanation; respondent directed to conduct inquiry within four weeks.

Rajesh Rahul.P Vs the Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.10238 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.03.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.10238 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)No.7932 of 2021

P.Rajesh Rahul

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner, Thirumangalam Municipality, Thirumangalam, Madurai District. ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order bearing Na.Ka.No. 303/2021/F1 dated 01.04.2021 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to continue as the Registered Engineer-III.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Shankar Ganesh

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.A.Kannan

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

W.P(MD)No.10238 of 2021

¶18

The Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 01.04.2021 passed by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.303/2021/F1 and for direction to permit the writ petitioner to continue as the Registered Engineer-III.

¶19

The case of the writ petitioner is that he being a Diploma holder

¶20

in Civil Engineering had obtained Registered Engineer Grade-III as per Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, that one Seenivasan approached the writ petitioner for building plan approval in respect of the property situated in Door No.413, TS.No. 22/1, Block-6, Ward-D, Thirumangalam, for which, the writ petitioner approached the Building Inspector of the Municipality and signed in the hard copy of the building plan, that while uploading the copies, the Building Inspector has uploaded some other documents, which were not given by the writ petitioner, that thereafter, the respondent, by alleging that there is a difference between the plan submitted through soft copy as well as hard copy, has issued a show cause notice dated 02.03.2021 to the writ petitioner directing him to appear before the respondent along with written explanation within a period of three days from the date of receipt

¶21

2/6

¶22

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

¶23

W.P(MD)No.10238 of 2021

¶24

of copy of that communication and that since the writ petitioner has not submitted any explanation, the impugned order came to be passed on 01.04.2021 cancelling the writ petitioner's license.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit

¶26

that since the respondent has found some fraudulent action, he has passed the impugned order cancelling the writ petitioner's license.

¶27

It is evident that the writ petitioner has applied for building plan approval for the first time and without giving any opportunity, the impugned cancellation order came to be passed. Considering the above facts and circumstances and taking note of the way in which the notice was issued and the time granted and the enquiry alleged to have conducted, this Court is of the view that the writ petitioner should be given one more opportunity to defend the proceedings.

¶28

In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.303/2021/F1 dated 01.04.2021 is hereby set aside. The writ petitioner is directed to submit

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P(MD)No.10238 of 2021

¶32

his written explanation before the respondent within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receiving the same, the respondent is directed to conduct proper enquiry and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶33

07.03.2024

¶34

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No csm

¶35

¶36

The Commissioner, Thirumangalam Municipality, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.

¶37

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P(MD)No.10238 of 2021

¶39

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P(MD)No.10238 of 2021

¶41

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J

¶42

csm

¶43

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.10238 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)No.7932 of 2021

¶44

Dated : 07.03.2024

¶45

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rajesh Rahul.P v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Rahul.P 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

Senthur Pandian.P Vs the District Collector

Rajan Tennyson Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Veeramanikandan.P Vs the Manager Marketing and Service

Ramadoss.R Vs The District Collector Cum District magistrate

Prema.S Vs the Dist.Registrar (Administration)

Y.Selvaraj Vs a.Anthony Ammal (Died)