Prakash Kumar v. The Commissioner
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 and Country Planning Act, 1971 s. 56(4)
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In view of the specific claim that the petitioner has preferredan appeal before the Appeal Standing committee, Corporation of Chennai on03.11.2006 and the same is still pending with the said authority, we are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the view that ends of justice would be met…
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.47740 of 2006and M.P.No.1 of 2006 Prakash Kumar..Petitioner..vs..The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600 003...RespondentWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus for the reasons mentioned therein. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Jayaraman, Senior Counsel for Mr.A.VelavanFor Respondent : Mr.V.Bharathidasan ORDER (Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.,)Petitioner has approached this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent not to demolish the petitioner's building at doorNo.118/70, Audiappa Naicken Street, Chennai-79 pending disposal of hisplanning permission before the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, as per Section 56(4) of Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and pendingdisposal of statutory appeal made to the Appeal Standing committee, Corporation of Chennai.
On direction, Mr.V.Bharathidasan takes notice for the respondent. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as therespondent.
Operative part
In view of the specific claim that the petitioner has preferredan appeal before the Appeal Standing committee, Corporation of Chennai on03.11.2006 and the same is still pending with the said authority, we are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the view that ends of justice would be met by directing the AppealStanding Committee, Corporation of Chennai, to consider and dispose ofthe appeal dated 03.11.2006 of the petitioner in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder. In view of the same, till decision being taken by the saidauthority, the demolition notice shall be kept in abeyance. 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 Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600 003.+ One cc to M/s. J. Ravindran Advocate SR 61647+ One cc to M/s. A. Velavan Advocate SR 61272+ One cc to M/s. V. Bharathidasan, Advocate SR 61497.AVM (co)sg 20/12/2006Writ Petition No.47740 of 2006 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 and Country Planning Act, 1971 — s. 56(4).
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.