Disposed

M.Kesavan v. The Director

Madras HC12 Feb 2025WP(MD)/3743/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the inaction of the Director of Town and Country Planning in disposing of his appeal against the rejection of his application to regularize unapproved layouts. The Court found the petitioner unduly hasty but directed the Director to decide the appeal within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent No.1 to dispose of the appeal within six weeks from receipt of order copy.

M.Kesavan Vs The Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)Nos.3743 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.3743 of 2025

¶7

M.Kesavan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Director, Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai.

¶10

2.The Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.1 herein to consider the petitioner's appeal petition dated 23.12.2024 and pass an appropriate order on merits within a stipulated time as prescribed by this Court.

¶12

Page 1 of 4

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.(MD)Nos.3743 of 2025

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.J.K.Jayaseelan, Government Advocate.

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The short grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that non disposal of the appeal filed under Rule 17 of the Tamilnadu Regularisation of Unapproved Layouts and Plots Rules, 2017 before the respondent No.1 against the orders passed by respondent No.2 in a proceeding bearing Na.Ka.No. 1255/2024/Thoo.Ma.A2 dated 26.11.2024.

¶18

2 . The petitioner claimed to have submitted his application to regularize his unapproved plots and layout by duly paying requisite fee to the respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 rejected the said application on un-sustainable grounds and hence, the petitioner claimed to have filed an appeal on 23.12.2024. It is complaining the inaction on the said appeal, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

W.P.(MD)Nos.3743 of 2025

¶23

3. As a matter of fact not even two months have lapsed on the date of filing of the Writ Petition. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner approached this Court with undue haste. However, considering the submission of learned Government Advocate stating that the respondent No.1 would dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within a short time, this Court is inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition with the following directions.

¶24

4. In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.1 to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 17 of the Tamilnadu Regularisation of Unapproved Layouts and Plots Rules, 2017 against the proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.1255/2024/Thoo.Ma.A2 dated 26.11.2024, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the same is otherwise in order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

12.02.2025

¶26

Neutral Citation: Yes / No Index : Yes / No vsm

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD)Nos.3743 of 2025

¶30

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

¶31

vsm

¶32

¶33

1.The Director, Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai.

¶34

2.The Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.3743 of 2025

¶36

12.02.2025

¶37

Page 4 of 4

¶38

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

M.Kesavan v. The Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Kesavan v. The Director

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

Tvl. Amsan Marketing Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer

M/S. the Viman Match Works, Vs the Registrar

Abitha Begam Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Rajasekaran. M Vs The Managing Director

Malarvizhi Vs The District Collector

Haji M.Kidhur Ahmed Vs The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board