Disposed

M.Theenathayalan v. The Commissioner

Madras HC16 Dec 2024WP(MD)/30479/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench, disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court directed the Commissioner of Tiruchirapalli City Corporation to consider a pending representation regarding unauthorized construction and pass appropriate orders within three months.

What did the court decide?

The 1st Respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.11.2024 and pass appropriate orders within three months.

M.Theenathayalan Vs The Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.30479 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.30479 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD).No.25616 of 2024

M.Theenathayalan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Tiruchirapalli City Corporation, Tiruchirapalli.

¶11

2.D.D.Niveditha ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to consider the representation dated 20.11.2024 and to pass appropriate orders within the time frame stipulated by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Venkatesh For R-1 : Mr.K.R.Kishore Ram for M/s.R.B.Law Associates

¶14

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

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

W.P.(MD).No.30479 of 2024

¶17

ORDER

¶18

By consent of both sides, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed for Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to consider the representation dated 20.11.2024 and to pass appropriate orders within the time frame stipulated by this Court.

¶20

Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the second respondent, notice to the second respondent is hereby dispensed with.

¶21

The petitioner herein had given a representation to the first respondent on 20.11.2024 to take action against the unauthorized construction made by the second respondent. Since the said representation was not considered, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶22

It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon him to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

W.P.(MD).No.30479 of 2024

¶25

and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.

¶26

In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the first respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.11.2024, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and the second respondent herein, as well as all other persons, who may be interested in the subject matter, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is open to the concerned respondents to consider the same on its own merits.

¶27

7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶28

(M.S.R.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 16.12.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm Page 3 of 5

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD).No.30479 of 2024

¶31

¶32

The Commissioner, Tiruchirapalli City Corporation, Tiruchirapalli.

¶33

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

¶34

Page 4 of 5

¶35

W.P.(MD).No.30479 of 2024

¶36

M.S.RAMESH,J. and A.D.MARIA CLETE,J.

¶37

¶38

W.P.(MD).No.30479 of 2024

¶39

16.12.2024

¶40

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

¶41

Page 5 of 5

M.Theenathayalan v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Theenathayalan 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

M.J.Jayapal Vs M.Pallavi Baldev

Periyasamy Vs Madhusudhan Reddy

Muthupandi Vs S.Ramesh

S.Satheesh Kumar Vs The Director General of Police

S.Rajesh Kanna Vs The District Collector

M.Alagarraja Vs The District Collector / Monitoring Committee