K.Sankar v. The Managing Director

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.4.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE S.VIMALA W.A.No.389 of 2017 and C.M.P.Nos.5965 and 5966 of 2017 K.Sankar Appellant/Petitioner

Versus

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai Respondent/Respondent Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 28.4.2014 passed in W.P.No.27769 of 2011 on the file of this court.

WP.No.27769/2011:Petition has been filed under sec 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus Calling for the records relating to the impugned order vide Na.Ka.No.G4/17793/10 dated 08.12.2010 and subsequent order in Na.Ka.No.G4/17793/10 dated 15.04.11 passed by the respondent and quash the same and direct them to allot the house No.24 Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board at MeerBhasa Street Royapettah For appellant : Mr.R.Gopinath

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the court was made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant for some time.

2. The writ appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant claiming allotment of a house by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board. alleging that he is one among the victims who had lost their huts in a fire accident.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. It appears that the learned Single Judge, having gone through the counter filed by the respondent and also the conduct of the appellant/petitioner, found that he was not at all residing in the area where the fire accident took place and moreover, he had submitted very belatedly that too without submitting any proof to show that he was living in the area in question at the relevant point of time. The well considered view of the learned Single Judge does not call for interference and hence, the case of the appellant does not deserve any consideration. However, if the respondent is inclined to consider the claim of the petitioner/appellant, it is for the respondent to do so.

4. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. -s/dAssistant Registrar(CSV) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar ssk.

To:

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai +1 cc to Mr.R.Gopinath Advocate sr 21885 W.A.No.389 of 2017 rsy(co) aa09/05/2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/