Madras High CourtWP/9578/2021disposed of

A.Kannan v. The Disrict Collector Of Chennai

2021-09-23Honourable Mr Justice V.Sivagnanam,Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 23.09.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM W.P. No.9578 of 2021 A.Kannan .. Petitioner

Versus

1. The District Collector of Chennai, Rajaji Road, Chennai 600 001.

2. The Commissioner, Ribbon Building, Chennai 600 003.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, South Zone, 115, Dr.Muthulakshmi Salai, Adyar, Chennai 600 020.

4. The Director,

5. The Director, Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, (CMWSSB)

6. The Assistant Engineer, No.110/11, Bharathi Salai, Nolambur, Chennai 600037.

7. The Zonal Officer, Zone XI, No.33, Arcot Road, Valasaravakkam, Chennai 600 087.

8. The Executive Engineer, Zone XI, No.123, Arcot Road, Valasaravakkam, Chennai 600 087.

.. Respondents [R8, Suo-motu impleaded vide order of this Court dated 19.04.2021 in WP.No.9578 of 2021] PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 7 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2021 and allot a small Bunk for enabling the petitioner to put up a steel bunk shop in a place located near the Tahsildar Office at Maduravoyal or near Combined Sub Registrar Office at Nolambur, Chennai 600 037. For petitioner : Mr.Srinivasa Raghavan for Mr.K.Kannan For respondents for R1 : Mr.TNC.Kaushik for R2,3,7&8 : Mr.K.Raja Shrinivas for RR4 & 6 : Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh

ORDER

(The Order of the Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J) The Writ Petition is heard through video conferencing.

2. The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 7 to consider his representation dated 10.03.2021.

3. The petitioner would claim that he met with an accident in the year 2004 and thereafter, he could not lead a normal life. He would further add that his disability is assessed at 70% and he is also unemployed. In such circumstances, he gave a representation to the respondents 1 to 7 seeking permission to allot a Bunk Shop. Since it was not considered, the present Writ Petition.

4. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

5. It is represented by the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2, 3, 7 & 8 Mr.Raja Shrinivas, that when the Writ Petition is pending, the eighth respondent called the petitioner for enquiry on 10.06.2021. Since he wanted to establish a Bunk Shop in the Tahsildar Office, he was directed to approach the Revenue Officials.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that the petitioner wants to establish a Bunk Shop near the Tahsildar Office on the road portion and hence, the Corporation authorities may be directed to consider his representation.

7. In reply, it is represented by the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2, 3, 7 & 8 that the petitioner has not given any representation to the eighth respondent so far, and if a representation is given to the eighth respondent, he is ready to consider the same.

8. In the light of the submissions of the learned counsels, this Court without going into the merits of the matter, directs the petitioner to give a representation to the eight respondent enclosing all necessary documents, within a period of two weeks. On such receipt, the eighth respondent shall consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law.

9. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar pvs To