High Court Madras High Court

Mr.S.M.Syed Munvar Hussain vs The Assistant Commissioner on 4 February, 2011

Madras High Court
Mr.S.M.Syed Munvar Hussain vs The Assistant Commissioner on 4 February, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Date:4.2.2011

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR

Writ Petition No.2006 of 2011 
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011
 
 

Mr.S.M.Syed Munvar Hussain.         		..Petitioner  

   vs.				

The Assistant Commissioner, 
Corporation of Madras,
Zone-X,
Adyar,
Chennai-20.                           		..Respondent



	Writ Petition  is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of respondent impugned notice dated 29.11.2010, quash the same as null and void, and consequential relief directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to open and continue the Biszmi Briyani Centre at No.4/2, Kamaraj Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-41.
	

	For Petitioner      :        Mr.T.Ramachandran

	For Respondent      :	     Mr.V.Bharathidasan

-----

O R D E R

Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of respondent relating to impugned notice dated 29.11.2010, quash the same as null and void, and consequential relief directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to open and continue the Biszmi Briyani Centre at No.4/2, Kamaraj Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-41.

2. Mr.V.Bharathidasan, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondent. Considering the nature of relief sought for in the writ petition and by consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.

3. Petitioner challenges the notice dated 29.11.2010 issued by the respondent corporation to the petitioner’s eatery shop stating that they are not taken the licence as contemplated under the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act IV of 1919. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that immediately on receipt of the impugned notice, an application dated 8.12.2010 was submitted to the respondent along with other records.

4. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the so-called application dated 8.12.2010 is not on file. In view of the disputed fact, the petitioner is given liberty to file fresh application with proper acknowledgment so as to enable the respondent authority to proceed in the matter in accordance with law for grant of licence if the petitioner complies with all the legal requirement. The writ petition is ordered as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

ts

To

The Assistant Commissioner,
Corporation of Madras,
Zone-X,
Adyar,
Chennai 20