R.M.Ganesan v. The Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-03-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD R.M.Ganesan S/o. Late Muthusamy, No. 8 Periyanaga Poondi, Pallipat Taluk, Thiruvalur District.
Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Riopn Buildings, Chennai - 600 103.
2.The Assistant Engineer, Zone 8 - Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai - 600 103.
Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1 st respondent, i.e., The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai - 600 013, to consider the petitioner's 1/6
representation dated 05.03.2025 within the time fixed by this Court and pass such further orders.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.G. Saravanakumar For Respondent(s):
Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu, Standing Counsel
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1 st respondent, i.e., The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai - 600 013, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.03.2025 within a time frame fixed by this Court.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of a 100-year-old commercial building at No.128 Gengu Reddy Road, Egmore, Chennai. The property was originally owned by Dr.A.L.Annamalai and later sold to the petitioner by Dr. Ruth Annamalai in 2012. The building is structurally unsafe with cracks, water leakage, and tree intrusion. In 2024, a fatal accident occurred due to the building's condition, leading to an FIR (Crime No.218/2024). The MRTS underground work has further weakened the structure. A demolition 2/6
Order was issued in 2007, and the demolition charges were paid, but the order was not executed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the building is over 100 years old and structurally unsafe, posing a life-threatening risk, and the respondents failed to act, despite issuing a Demolition Order in 2007 and receiving the necessary demolition charges. He further contends that the unauthorized squatters are refusing to vacate, citing old permissions, and ignoring the safety risks, and he also faces potential legal consequences if the building collapses, despite his efforts to initiate demolition. Thus, he requested the 1 st respondent to issue a fresh Demolition Order through his representations on 04.02.2025 and 05.03.2025, and the same was received by the 1 st respondent on 06.03.2025, but till date no action has been taken by the respondents so far. Hence the present writ petition is filed.
4. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the representation of the petitioner dated 05.03.2025 would be considered on merits, in accordance with law, within a time frame stipulated by this Court. 3/6
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Without going into the merits of the case, the first respondent is directed to conduct a detailed enquiry after giving due notice to the petitioner, affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, taking into consideration the petitioner's representation dated 05.03.2025, and pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations and direction. No costs.
12-03-2025 cda Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order 4/6
To
1. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Riopn Buildings, Chennai - 600 103.
2.The Assistant Engineer, Zone 8 - Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai - 600 103.
5/6
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD J.
cda 12-03-2025 6/6