Vedapriya, v. State Of Tamilnadu,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20-03-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR and WMP.Nos.12891, 12897 & 12888 of 2024 1.Vedapriya 2.Shantha Petitioner(s) Vs

1. State of Tamilnadu, Rep. By its Additional Secretary(Technical), Housing And Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai -600009.

2.Greater Chennai Corporation, Rep. By Its Commissioner, Ripon Building, Chennai -600003.

3.The Executive Engineer, Greater Chennai Corporation, Zone-14, Division-106, 6/164, Puzhuthivakkam Main Road, Chennai -600091.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking for an issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the Records of the 1st Respondent in their Letter No. 6448795/UD-VII(2)/2024-3 dated 01.04.2024 relating to rejection of the Petitioners Special Revision Petition filed under Sec.80A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act pertaining to the petitioners building put up at SP Grand Palace, Plot No. 431, Ramalingam Nagar, Main Road, Ram nagar North, Puzhuthivakkam, Chennai 600091 and Consequential notice of the 3rd Respondent dated 15.04.2024 in Letter Z.O. 14/C.No /A1/8230/2023 for locking and sealing and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents 2 and 3 from interfering with the above said building in any manner, particularly by way of locking, sealing and demolition of the same, pending final determination of petitioners revised plan application dated 23.04.2024 vide permit Approval No.

PPA/WDCN14/03608/2014 submitted with the respondents 2 and 3 and rectification thereon, in consonance to the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Regulations, 2019 For Petitioner(s):

Mr.N.Ganesh For Respondent(s):

Mrs.E.Ranganayaki Additional Government Pleader for R1 2.Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu Standing Counsel for R2 and R3

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition. He also made the following endorsement to that effect in the Court bundle:

"The Writ Petitioner not pressed this writ petition, since he applied for demolition and reconstruction with Corporation. Hence, permit to withdraw as not pressed."

2.

In view of the endorsement made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Writ Petition stands withdrawn as not pressed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.) (K.RAJASEKAR J.) 20-03-2025 veda Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To 1.State Of Tamilnadu, Rep. By Its Additional Secretary(technical), Housing And Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai -600009.

2.Greater Chennai Corporation, Rep. By Its Commissioner, Ripon Building, Chennai -600003.

3.The Executive Engineer, Greater Chennai Corporation, Zone-14, Division-106, 6/164, Puzhuthivakkam Main Road, Chennai -600091.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.

AND K.RAJASEKAR J.

veda 20-03-2025