Writ Petition No. 3795 of 2007 · Madras High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- P SATHASIVAM
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- ofChennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 ss. 92, 256(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In view of the specific assertion by the petitioner that he has not received the copy of the rejection order and in the absence of even office copy of the same in the file of the CMDA, in order to solve the issue, we…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:- 30.03.2007Coram:-The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.TAMILVANANWrit Petition No.3795 of 2007& M.P.No.1 of 2007P.Pattu Jabaraj.. Petitioner Vs.
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai-3.
The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, CMDA, Chennai-8. (R2 impleaded as per order dated 8.2.2007 by PSJ&NPVJ in MP.2/07 in WP.3795/07).. RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiafor issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondent in No.Z.O,/VIII C.No.Dn.126/6979/2006dated 09.01.2007 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Suresh kumarFor 1st Respondent : Mr.V.BharathidasanFor 2nd respondent : Mr.J.RavindranORDER(Order of the Court was delivered by P. SATHASIVAM, J.)Aggrieved by the proceedings of the first respondent. Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, dated 09.01.2007, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.2. After filing the writ petition, the petitioner has impleadedthe Member Secretary, CMDA, as the second respondent.
Heard all the parties. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Though in paragraph 3 of the impugned proceedings, it is stated by the Zonal Officer-VIII, Corporation of Chennai, that they have initiated action and issued notices under Section 256 (1) and 92) of Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, on 14.05.1999 and hisregularisation application was rejected by the CMDA, it is the grievance of the petitioner that till this date, he has not received any such orderas claimed in the said paragraph. In order to verify the same, the matter was adjourned on several occasions.
The learned counsel appearing for the CMDA has produced the register which shows that though the copy of the rejection order is not available in the file, the said order was acknowledged by the petitioner.
In view of the specific assertion by the petitioner that he has not received the copy of the rejection order and in the absence of even office copy of the same in the file of the CMDA, in order to solve the issue, we direct the Member Secretary, CMDA, the second respondent herein, to pass fresh order on the basis of the materials supplied by the petitioner vide notes on hearing conducted at DP, EC (Central) on19.06.2006 dated 19.06.2006, in one way or other, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.7. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. M.P.No.1 of2007 is closed.raaSd/-Asst. Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai-3.2.The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, CMDA, Chennai-8.+1 cc to M/s.M.Suresh Kumar, Advocate sr. No.20793.+1 cc to M/s.V.Bharathidasan, Advocate Sr.No.20727.+1 cc to M/s.J.Ravindran, Advocate Sr.No.20721.AVM(CO)dcp/13.4.07W.P.No.3795 of 2007
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.