Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M. JAYAJOTHI versus COMMISSIONER

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M. Jayajothi v. Commissioner - W.P. No.4636 of 2006 [2007] RD-TN 28 (3 January 2007)


In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

Dated: 03.01.2007

Coram

The Honourable Mr.Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

Writ Petition No.4636 of 2006,
WPMP. No.5008 of 2006
and
WVMP. No.2070 of 2006




1. Mrs. M. Jayajothi

2. Mrs. R. Jayaboopathy
(petitioners are rep. By
their Power Agent R. Nagarajan) ..Petitioners


Vs


The Commissioner
Ambattur Municipality
Ambattur
Chennai 600 053. ..Respondent



Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorari as stated therein.



For Petitioners : Mr. V. Chandrakanthan

For Respondent : Mrs. G. Devi


ORDER



(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.) Aggrieved by the proceedings of the Commissioner, Ambattur Municipality dated 16.01.2006, the petitioners have filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various grounds.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent.

3. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the respondent Municipality by taking us through the documents filed in the form of typed set of papers submitted that the Municipality is mainly concerned with the encroachment made by the petitioners and also submitted that the Municipality is empowered to take action against the petitioners for violation of the approved plan.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in respect of alleged deviations, they made a representation to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (in short, "CMDA") and also paid necessary charges for regularisation. According to the counsel, the same is pending with CMDA and it is for the petitioners to pursue the same. We are not expressing anything on the application made by the petitioners for regularisation and the orders to be passed by CMDA.

5. In so far as the encroachment, in view of the fact that the present impugned proceeding is not clear, we permit the respondent Municipality to issue fresh notice mentioning the details of encroachment and proceed further in accordance with law. With the above observation, the writ petition is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. kh

To

The Commissioner

Ambattur Municipality

Ambattur

Chennai 600 053.

[PRV/9171]


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.