Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHINNAI YELLAMANDA versus STATE OF TN

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Chinnai Yellamanda v. State of TN - WP.No.14526 of 2006 [2007] RD-TN 1390 (11 April 2007)

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

Dated: 11.04.2007

Coram:

The Honourable Mr.Justice P.SATHASIVAM

and

The Honourable Mr.Justice S.TAMILVANAN

Writ Petition No.14526 of 2006

1.Chinnai Yellamanda Chetty Anjaneyalu

Chetty Charities, rep. by its

Managing Trustee C.Nagarajan,

No.156, Rassappa Chetty Street,

Chennai-600 001.

2.C.Subang

3.Sindhuri

4.C.Sadvi

5.A.Swarupini

6.N.Sugandhi

7.S.Nagamani

8.N.Manjari

9.C.Chandan .. Petitioners ..vs..

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,

rep. by the Commissioner and

Secretary to Government,

Housing & Urban Development Department,

Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2. The Member Secretary,

Chennai Metropolitan

Development Authority,

Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,

8, Gandhi Irwin Road,

Chennai-600 008.

3.The Managing Director,

Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply

& Sewerage Board,

Chennai-2. .. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in its letter dated 09.05.2006 bearing No.BC1/14256/2005 and quash the said proceedings so far as it imposes the condition to remit a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- as security deposit and Rs.5,37,000/- as Water supply & Sewerage Infrastructure Improvement charges as condition precedent for the issuance of planning permission for the proposed construction of 2 blocks of Stilt + 4 floors, residential buildings with 64 dwelling units at old No.72, New No.95, Mc Nichols Road, Chetpet, Chennai-31 in R.S.No.381/1, and 381/6, Block No.24 of Egmore Village and consequently, direct the second respondent to grant planning permission without insisting on the payment of the same. For Petitioner : Mr. A.R.Karunakaran For 2nd Respondent : Mr.J.Ravindran For respondents 1 &3 : Mr.K.Elango, Spl. Govt. Pleader ORDER



(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.) Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the above writ petition. He also made an endorsement to that effect in the writ petition.

2. Accordingly, permission is granted and the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is free to challenge the provisions contained in Rule 19(b)(III)-(B) of the Development Control Rules, if need arises, at the appropriate time. No costs. raa

To

1. The Commissioner and

Secretary to Government,

State of Tamil Nadu,

Housing & Urban Development Department,

Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2. The Member Secretary,

Chennai Metropolitan

Development Authority,

Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,

8, Gandhi Irwin Road,

Chennai-600 008.

3.The Managing Director,

Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply

& Sewerage Board,


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.