Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Writ petition is disposed of on the above terms
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 s. 256(3)
- theChennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 s. 256(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. We perused the order dated 09.11.2006 passed by us inW.P.No.43115 of 2006. We also perused the show cause notice, representation as well as the final notice dated 16.10.2006 in thecase on hand. In view of the fact that even in the notice dated16.10.2006, the…
Judgment
In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated: 05.12.2006Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Honourable Mr.Justice S.TAMILVANANWrit Petition No.43724 of 2006and M.P.No.2 of 20061. R.Srinivasan2. Vatsala Srinivasan..Petitioners..vs..
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600 003.
The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
K.P.Lakshminarayanan..RespondentsWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the recordsrelating to the notice dated 16.10.2006 issued under Section 256(3) ofthe Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act 1919, vide No.9301confirming the Provisional Notice issued under Section 256(1) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act 1919, vide No.7406 dated25.09.2006 and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.R.KannanFor Respondents : Mr.E.R.K.Moorthy for R1 Mr.J.Ravindran for R2 Mr.M.S.Ramesh for R3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER (Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.,)By consent of all the parties, the main writ petition is takenup for final disposal.2. Aggrieved by the Notice dated 16.10.2006 issued under Section256(3) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, videNo.9301 confirming the Provisional notice issued under Section 256(1)of the said Act, vide No.7406 dated 25.09.2006, the petitioners havefiled the above writ petition.3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as therespondents including the contesting third respondent.
The main grievance expressed by the learned counsel for thepetitioners is that after the receipt of the show cause notice dated25.09.2006, the 1st petitioner, viz., R.Srinivasan submitted a detailedrepresentation to the Commissioner of Corporation of Chennai on13.10.2006. The said representation is available at pages 45 to 47 ofthe typed set filed by the petitioners. According to the learnedcounsel for the petitioners, in spite of the same, the final noticeunder Section 256(3) of the said Act had been issued by the Commissioner on 16.10.2006, without adverting to the points raised inthe representation dated 13.10.2006. Learned counsel further pointsout that in similar circumstances, particularly in respect of thesame premises, at the instance of one T.Kolappan, by an order dated09.11.2006 in W.P.No.43115, this Court quashed the similar notice andpermitted the 1st respondent, Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, topass fresh orders, after considering the representation of the firstpetitioner dated 13.10.2006 in accordance with law.
Operative part
We perused the order dated 09.11.2006 passed by us inW.P.No.43115 of 2006. We also perused the show cause notice, representation as well as the final notice dated 16.10.2006 in thecase on hand. In view of the fact that even in the notice dated16.10.2006, the 1st respondent has not considered the representation /explanation of the petitioners, without going into the merits of theclaim made by the parties, as ordered in the order dated 09.11.2006 inW.P.No.43115 of 2006, while quashing the notice dated 16.10.2006, wepermit the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the firstpetitioner dated 13.10.2006 and pass fresh orders, in accordance withlaw, after affording an opportunity to both parties concerned. It ismade clear that if the action of the petitioners is contrary to thesanctioned plan, the Officer is free to pass appropriate orders inaccordance with law. The same has to be completed within a period ofeight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.glSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600 003.2. The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.1 cc to Mr.M.S. Ramesh, Advocate sr 600411 cc to Mr. R. Kannan, Advocate sr 600291 cc to Mr.E.R.K. Moorthy, Advocate sr 60609Writ Petition No.43724 of 2006 05.12.2006sr(co)bp/15.12
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ petition is disposed of on the above terms
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 — s. 256(3); theChennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 — s. 256(1).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.