Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Town andCountry Planning Act s. 79
- Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 s. 79
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. The Chairman, Tamilnadu State Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.6. The Managing Director, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002.7. R.Ramani..RespondentsWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiafor issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified…
Judgment
In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated: 11.12.2006Coram:The Honourable Mr.Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Honourable Mr.Justice S.TAMILVANANWrit Petition No.47707 of 2006and M.P.No.1 of 2006Arunodayam Flat Owners Association(Regd.),represented by its Secretary, Mr.S.Arun Kumar, Flat No.13/27, Akbarabad 1st Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024...Petitioner..vs..1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.2. The Member-Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai.3. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.4. M/s.Baba Foundations, Old No.7, New Door No.19, Akbarabad 1st Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
#5. The Chairman, Tamilnadu State Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.6. The Managing Director, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002.7. R.Ramani..RespondentsWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiafor issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for therecords of the 2nd respondent in their Letter No.EC3/27391/2002 dated13.11.2006 for demolition of the petitioner's flats at new door No.27 and29, old No.12 and 13, Akbarabad 1st Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24 andquash the same and direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to forbear them frominterfering with the petitioner's above building in any mannerparticularly by way of demolition pending final determination of thepetitioner's appeal under Section 79 of the Town and Country Planning Actpending with the 1st respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Wesley IsaacFor Respondents : Mr.K.Elango, Spl.G.P., for R1 Mr.J.Ravindran for R2 Mr.A.Mohammed Gouse for R3 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.,)Aggrieved by the proceedings of the second respondent dated13.11.2006 for demolition of the petitioner's flats at new door No.27 and29, old door No.12 and 13, Akbarabad 1st Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24,the petitioner Association has filed the above writ petition to quash thesame, forbearing respondents 2 and 3 from interfering with petitioner'sbuilding in any manner, particularly, by way of demolition, pending finaldetermination of the petitioner's appeal under Section 79 of the Town andCountry Planning Act, pending with the 1st respondent.2. On direction, learned Special Government Pleader takes noticefor the 1st respondent. 3. In view of the admitted factual position, namely, against theimpugned demolition notice, the petitioner association has also filed an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appeal under Section 79 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971,before the 1st respondent (copy of the appeal grounds is available atpages 10 to 12 of the typed set), we are of the view that ends of justicewould be met by directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose ofthe appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law, within a period ofeight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In view ofthe fact that the petitioner has filed statutory appeal before the 1strespondent and the impugned order being direction to demolish thebuilding in question, till final order / decision being taken by the 1strespondent, no demolition should be carried out by any of therespondents. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Nocosts. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2006 is closed. glSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1. The Secretary to Govt.of Tamil Nadu, Housing & Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.2. The Member-Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai.3. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.4. The Chairman, Tamilnadu State Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
#5. The Managing Director, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002.ONE CC TO MR.P. WESLEY ISAAC, ADVOCATE SR 61174ONE CC TO MR.A. MOHAMED GOUSE, ADVOCATE SR 61474Writ Petition No.47707 of 2006JRG(CO)BP/19.12 11.12.2006
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Town andCountry Planning Act — s. 79; Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 — s. 79.
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.