Disposed

Senthur Pandian.P v. the District Collector

Madras HC6 Mar 2024WP(MD)/8911/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a notice demanding lease rental for shop No.2 Bus Stand Complex for 2020-21, citing Covid lockdown. The court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's case in accordance with cited Government Orders within four weeks and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to consider petitioner's case in accordance with Government Orders within four weeks.

Senthur Pandian.P Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.8911 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.03.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.8911 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.6704 and 6706 of 2021

P.Senthur Pandian

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, O/o. The District Collector, Tenkasi District.

¶11

The Executive Officer, Courtallam Special Grade Town Panchayat, Courtallam, Tenkasi District. ... Respondents

¶12

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 entire records relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No. 36/2020/A3 dated 12.02.2021 passed by the second respondent in respect of shop No.2 Bus stand complex and quash the same as illegal and consequently a direction, directing the respondents to exempt this

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

W.P(MD)No.8911 of 2021

¶16

petitioner from paying the lease rental amounts payable for the period of 2020-2021 in respect of shop No.2 Bus stand complex, in view Covid pandemic lock down.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Dinesh For Respondents : Mr.SRA.Ramachandran Additional Government Pleader

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.36/2020/A3 dated 12.02.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to exempt the writ petitioner from paying the lease rental amounts payable for the period 2020-21 in respect of shop No.2 bus stand complex, in view of the Covid pandemic lock down.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and

¶21

the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶22

The case of the writ petitioner is that he was given licence to run shops in No.16 Sengottai Complex Shops, Shop Nos.2 and 3 Bus Stand

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P(MD)No.8911 of 2021

¶26

Complex and Five Falls Complex, that the second respondent has issued a notice dated 12.02.2021 directing the writ petitioner to pay lease amount of Rs.27,769/- in respect of Bus Stand Complex Shop No.2 for the period 2020-2021 (excluding April 2020 and May 2020) deducting security deposit already made. This notice has been put to challenge in the present Writ Petition.

¶27

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned

¶28

counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has cited a decision of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.3274 of 2021, wherein also, with regard to same issue, the writ petitioner therein has filed the above writ petition and a learned Judge has directed the respondent therein to deal with the case of the writ petitioner therein in line with the Government Orders viz., G.O(D)No. 298, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MA.IV) Department, dated 02.09.2020 and G.O(D)No.337, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MA.IV) Department, dated 16.06.2023.

¶29

At this juncture, the learned Additional Government Pleader

¶30

appearing for the respondents would submit that the writ petitioner is

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD)No.8911 of 2021

¶34

certainly entitled to get the benefits under the above said Government Orders and the second respondent may be directed to consider the same and pass orders in accordance with the above said Government Orders.

¶35

Recording the submissions made on either side, the second respondent is hereby directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner in accordance with the Government Orders above referred and that the said process shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶36

With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶37

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

¶38

06.03.2024

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

W.P(MD)No.8911 of 2021

¶42

¶43

The District Collector, O/o. The District Collector, Tenkasi District.

¶44

The Executive Officer, Courtallam Special Grade Town Panchayat, Courtallam, Tenkasi District.

¶45

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶46

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

¶47

W.P(MD)No.8911 of 2021

¶48

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J

¶49

csm

¶50

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.8911 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.6704 and 6706 of 2021

¶51

Dated : 06.03.2024

¶52

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

Senthur Pandian.P v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senthur Pandian.P v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thoubeek Raja.N Vs the Commissioner

Sundar Raj Vs Banu

Servaran Vs Mariammal

Rajan Tennyson Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Veeramanikandan.P Vs the Manager Marketing and Service

M/S.Arjun Pulp and Papers (I) Private Limited, Vs Visakan Impex