High Court Madras High Court

Murugadas vs The Trichirappalli City … on 8 December, 2009

Madras High Court
Murugadas vs The Trichirappalli City … on 8 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATE: 08/12/2009

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

Writ Petition(MD) No.12837 of 2009
and
M.P(MD) No.1 of 2009

Murugadas							.. Petitioner

Vs

1.The Trichirappalli City Corporation,
   Rep. by its Commissioner,
   Trichirappalli City Corporation,
   Trichy.

2.The Assistant Director,
   Trichirappalli City Planning Project,
   Trichirappalli City Corporation,
   Trichirappalli.

3.A.Francis							.. Respondent

Prayer

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1 and 2 respondents to take
appropriate action against the 3rd respondent for the violation of the town
planning rules in construction of the apartments on the basis of the
petitioner's representation, dated 25.10.2009.

!For Petitioner	   ... 	Mr.S.Muthukrishnan
^For Respondents   ... 	Mr.Pala Ramasamy
		      	Special Government Pleader
:ORDER

Heard Mr.S.Muthukrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.Pala Ramasamy, the learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Mandamus, to
direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the 3rd
respondent for the violation of the town planning rules, in the construction of
the apartments, on the basis of the petitioner’s representation, dated
25.10.2009.

3. Though the prayer sought for by the petitioner, in the present writ
petition, is for a larger relief, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the petitioner is permitted
to make a representation to the first respondent, with regard to the reliefs
sought for in the writ petition and if the first respondent is directed to
dispose of the said representation, on merits and in accordance with law, within
a specified period.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the
respondents has no objection for this Court passing such an order.

5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on
either side, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the first
respondent, within fifteen days from today and on receipt of such
representation, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the same, on
merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, as well as to the other parties concerned, within a period of twelve
weeks, thereafter.

6. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

cs

To

1.The Trichirappalli City Corporation,
Rep. by its Commissioner,
Trichirappalli City Corporation,
Trichy.

2.The Assistant Director,
Trichirappalli City Planning Project,
Trichirappalli City Corporation,
Trichirappalli.