Partly allowed

Manikam v. The Commissioner

Madras HC19 Jun 2024WP(MD)/13029/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court directed the Commissioner of Thoothukudi Corporation to initiate legal action against private respondents for alleged unauthorized construction. The court did not decide the merits of the illegal construction claim.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to take action on the petitioner's representation within three months. The writ petition is disposed of.

Manikam Vs The Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.13029 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.06.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR .R.MAHADEVAN , ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.13029 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD) No.11570 of 2024

A.Manickam

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Commissioner Thoothukudi Corporation Thoothukudi

¶12

2.Member Secretary Local Planning Authority West Car Street, Thoothukudi

¶13

3.Chitra

¶14

4.Padmavathy

¶15

5.Kailasam

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate appropriate legal action, based on the representation given by the petitioner dated 04.06.2024, against the respondents 3 to 5 for the unauthorized and illegal

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(MD) No.13029 of 2024

¶21

construction of building comprised in Door No.215, North Car Street, Thoothukudi, within the registration District of Tuticorin and Sub-Registration District of Tuticorin, without any approval and in gross violation of the Building Rules.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kadarkarai For Respondents : Mr.N.Anandakumar Standing Counsel for R1 Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader for R2

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

R.MAHADEVAN , A.C.J. And G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and learned Additional Government Pleader for the second respondent.

¶26

2. Issuance of notice to the respondents 3 to 5 is dispensed with.

¶27

3. The petitioner alleges that the respondents 3 to 5 have put up unauthorized and illegal construction. He wants the same to be removed. The petitioner had already given a representation in this regard.

¶28

Page 2 of 4

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.13029 of 2024

¶31

4. We direct the first respondent to take action on the petitioner's representation on merits and in accordance with law. We make it clear that the we have not gone into the merits of the matter. All the contentions and defence of the private respondents are left open. The first respondent shall put the private respondents and any other interested parties on notice before taking any adverse action. The authorities shall adhere to due process of law. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶32

5. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶33

[R.M.D., A.C.J.] [G.R.S., J.] 19.06.2024

¶34

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

¶35

krk / ias

¶36

To: The Member Secretary, Local Planning Authority, West Car Street, Thoothukudi.

¶37

Page 3 of 4

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD) No.13029 of 2024

¶40

R.MAHADEVAN , A.C.J. and G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶41

krk / ias

¶42

W.P.(MD) No.13029 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD) No.11570 of 2024

¶43

19.06.2024

¶44

_____________ Page 4 of 4_

¶45

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

Manikam v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikam 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

A.Balakrishnan Vs The Chairman

K.Sathiyamoorthi Vs The District Collector / Monitoring Committee

M/s.Anish Solar Systems Pvt. Ltd., Madurai Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

Joseph Benin. T Vs The District Collector

S.Balakrishnan Vs G.Lakshmipathy IAS

S.Krishnan, Vs the Secretary to Govt.