Madras High CourtWP/7991/2018disposed of

A.Elumalai v. Commissioner

2018-04-10Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.04.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. KALYANASUNDARAM W.P.No.7991 of 2018 A.Elumalai ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Revenue Department, Chennai.

2.The Revenue Officer, (Zone -N 13, Division N-170), Revenue Department, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai.

...Respondents

PRAYER:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and dispose the renewal application of the petitioner dated 13.03.2018 submitted by the petitioner in relation to the Hotel Malaiyappa carrying on business at No.49 & 51, 2nd Sector Road, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032, within the time fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sukumaran For Respondents : Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan Standing Counsel

O R D E R

Heard Mr.K.Sukumaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2.The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider his renewal application dated 13.03.2018.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been running a hotel in the name and style of Hotel Malaiyappa and he was also given license from the respondent. When the petitioner gave an application for renewal of license, it was not considered by the respondents. Hence, the present writ petition. He further submitted that after filing this writ petition, the respondent has returned the renewal application. Now it has been sent through the registered post.

4.Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has constructed the hotel in the land allotted by the SIPCOT and due to the objection of the SIPCOT, the application of the petitioner for renewal of license was not considered and the second respondent is now ready to pass orders in accordance with law. 5.In the light of the above submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and the prayer sought for in the writ petition, without going into the merits of the case, this Court directs the second respondent to consider the renewal application of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity to all the necessary parties within a period of two weeks. Till such time, the respondents shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner.

6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 10.04.2018 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index:Yes/No vri

K. KALYANASUNDARAM,J.

vri To 1.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Revenue Department, Chennai.

2.The Revenue Officer, (Zone -N 13, Division N-170), Revenue Department, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai.

W.P.No.7991 of 2018 10.04.2018