Writ Petition No. 49195 of 2006 · Madras High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- ofChennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 s. 256(3)
- Chennai CityMunicipal Corporation Act, 1919 s. 256(3)
- Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act s. 256(3)
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In such circumstances, we are of the view that endsof justice would be met by directing the first respondentto consider the request / representation of the petitionerdated 22.09.2006 and pass appropriate orders in accordancewith law, within a period of six weeks from the date…
Judgment
In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated: 20.12.2006Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Honourable Mr.Justice S.TAMILVANANWrit Petition No.49195 of 2006and M.P.No.1 of 2006 Mohamed Ghouse..Petitioner..vs..
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai-600 003.
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Unit-19, Divn. No.103, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai-3.
Abdul Hafeez..RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus, calling for the records in respectof the notice dated 18.09.2006 under Section 256(3) of Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 on the file ofrespondents 1 and 2 and quash the same and directrespondents 1 and 2 not to demolish the 400 sq.ft.built uparea at No.23(12) Barracks Road, Periamet, Chennai-3.For Petitioner : Mr.M.ThamizhavelFor Respondents : Mr.A.Mohammed Ghouse for R1 and R2ORDER(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.,)The petitioner has approached this Court to issue aCertiorarified Mandamus, calling for the Notice dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
18.09.2006 issued under Section 256(3) of Chennai CityMunicipal Corporation Act, 1919 and quash the same anddirect respondents 1 and 2 not to demolish 400 sq.ft.builtup area at No.23(12), Barracks Road, Periamet, Chennai-3.2. On direction, Mr.Mohammed Ghouse takes notice forrespondents 1 and 2.3. The relief as claimed by the petitioner need notbe considered at this juncture since even according to him, he made a representation to the Commissioner, Corporationof Chennai on 22.09.2006, praying for permission toconstruct a house in an area of 400 sq.ft and approve theplan for the same. According to the learned counsel, thesaid representation has been duly acknowledged by the Commissioner on 26.09.2006. Copy of the representation andthe acknowledgment are available at pages 8 and 9 of thetyped set.
Operative part
In such circumstances, we are of the view that endsof justice would be met by directing the first respondentto consider the request / representation of the petitionerdated 22.09.2006 and pass appropriate orders in accordancewith law, within a period of six weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. Till such final decisionbeing passed, respondents 1 and 2 are directed not toenforce the Notice dated 18.09.2006 issued under Section256(3) of Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2006 is closed.glSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai-600 003.2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Unit-19, Divn. No.103, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai-3.+ one cc to Mr. A. Mohammed Gouse, Standing counsel for Corporation of Chennai sr no. 64000+ one cc to M/s. M. Thamizhavel, Advocate sr no. 63779GB(CO)NM(03.01.07) WP. No.49195 of 2006
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ petition is disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; ofChennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 — s. 256(3); Chennai CityMunicipal Corporation Act, 1919 — s. 256(3); Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act — s. 256(3).
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.