Loading...

Jeyakumar vs State Of Tamilnadu on 11 January, 2011

Madras High Court
Jeyakumar vs State Of Tamilnadu on 11 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATE: 11-01-2011

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

W.P.No.49788 of 2006 and
M.P.No.1 of 2006
Jeyakumar									.. Petitioner.
Versus

1.State of Tamilnadu, 
rep. By its Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Chennai-9.

2.Chairman and Managing Director,
Tamilnadu Housing Board,
Nandanam, Chennai-35.

3.Executive Engineer and Administrative
Officer, Tamilnadu Housing Board,
Hosur Housing Unit Bagalur Road,
Hosur-635 109.								.. Respondents.

Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent in G.O.(2D) No.63, dated 21.7.2006 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to handover possession of the house as per G.O.(2D) No.158, dated 11.8.2005. 


		For Petitioner	  : Mr.K.Perumal

		For Respondents	   : Ms.C.K.Vishnu Priya (AGP) (R1)
					      Mr.A.Vijaya Kumar (R2 & R3)

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. It has been stated that the petitioner had been allotted a flat bearing No.H-40, under G.O.2(D) No.158, dated 11.8.2005, in the Hosur Neighbourhood Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. While so, by a communication from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, dated 21.6.2006, the petitioner had been offered a vacant land situated adjacent to the flat allotted to him. Even though the petitioner had fulfilled all the necessary requirements, the first respondent had passed the order, dated 21.7.2006, in G.O.(2D).No.63, cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner, without issuing any notice to him. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Housing Board had submitted that the allotment order made in favour of the petitioner had been cancelled, as there was no other way of reaching the adjacent plot, except through the plot allotted in favour of the petitioner and as the rate for the said plot had not been fixed.

4. The learned counsel had also placed before this Court an order, dated 8.6.2009, passed by a Division Bench of this Court, in W.A.Nos.632 to 642 of 2009, wherein it had been held that an allotment made under the discretionary quota of the Government could be withdrawn or cancelled, without issuing any notice to the allottee and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the persons concerned. Further, it has also been submitted that the Scheme of making allotments, under the discretionary quota of the Government, had already been withdrawn.

5. In such circumstances, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

csh

To

1.State of Tamilnadu,
rep. By its Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Chennai-9.

2.Chairman and Managing Director,
Tamilnadu Housing Board,
Nandanam, Chennai-35.

3.Executive Engineer and Administrative
Officer, Tamilnadu Housing Board,
Hosur Housing Unit Bagalur Road,
Hosur 635 109

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information