← Library
Madras High CourtWP/12956/2010dismissed as infructuous

Mrs.B.Maragathamani v. State Of Tamilnadu

2019-08-08Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.08.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P. 12956 of 2010 and M.P. 2 of 2010

1. Mrs.B.Maragathamani

2. P.S.Ganesan

3. Saradha Venkatraman

4. Sures Jude Dean Vaidyanathan

5. Kamakshi Sundaram

6. Ramaniyam real Estates Pvt. Ltd.

7. M.Vijayalakshmi

8. R.Sharmila

9. K.Subramaniam

10. K.Soundhar Rajan

11. K.Soundhar Rajan

12. M/s.Baywater Farms (P) Ltd.,

13. Mrs.Lakshmi Sivaramakrishnan

14. Dr.Sheela Devi

15. R.Kalyana Sundaram

16. K.Sundar Raman

17. Rajendar Ranganath

18. P.N.Jayanth

19. Subbiah Lakshmanan

20. G.Premnath

21. Jairam K.Gaglani

22. S.Rajamani

23. S.Usha Shankar

24. S.Kamala

25. S.Sundaram Petitioners 6 to 25 are represented by Petitioners 1 to 5 as their Power of Attorney Agents having residence at No.11, Sruthi Apartments, Second Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020.

... Petitioners Vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

1/3

2. The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the 2nd respondent vide his impugned letter No.REG/C6/52573/2000 dated 26.05.2010 and quash the same and directing the respondents to issue orders of regularisation as per their Letter No.REG/C6/52573/2000 dated 12.08.2002 and release the regularisation approval plan to the petitioner building situated in Door No.18/4, New Mahabalipuram Main Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-41.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sundaresan For Respondents : Mr.J.Ramesh, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 Mr.P.Tamilmani for R2

O R D E R

Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the building was regularised by the respondents, nothing survives for further adjudication in this Writ Petition. Hence, he prayed that this Writ Petition may be dismissed as infructuous.

2. Recording the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar 2/3

rpp To

1. The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2. The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

+1cc to Mr.P.Tamilmani, Advocate sr.68841 W.P. 12956 of 2010 and M.P. 2 of 2010 rgn(co) nr 25/10/2019 3/3