M.Ravi Shankar v. The Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA M. Ravi Shankar ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Building, Chennai - 600 003.
2. The Zonal Officer, Zone XIII (Adyar), No.115, Dr.Muthulakshmi Salai, Adyar, Chennai 600 020.
3. M.Ramu ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.03.2025, seeking cancellation of trade license issued to "Raw Gym and Fitness Studio" at No.32/1, Thulukanathamman Koil street, Kotturpuram, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.S.V.Karthikeyan
For Respondents : Mrs.P.T.Ramadevi Standing Counsel for R1 & R2
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.03.2025, seeking cancellation of trade license issued to "Raw Gym and Fitness Studio" at No.32/1, Thulukanathamman Koil street, Kotturpuram, Chennai.
2. With the consent of both side counsels the main writ petition is taken up for disposal.
3. The petitioner states that he is the joint owner of the property in T.S.No.159/8, Block No.17, Door No.32/1, Thulukanathamman Koil street, Kotturpuram, Chennai, by virtue of settlement deed executed by his father on 16.09.2011. The 3rd respondent herein is the brother of the petitioner and coowner of the above property. The 3rd respondent approached the petitioner for establishing a Gym in the said vacant land and agreed to the condition that he should pay rent for occupying the property. Thereafter the petitioner gave no objection for issuance of trade license for establishing the Gym. Later the
petitioner came to know that the 3rd respondent and his son created fabricated documents including patta in respect of the property and immediately objected for issuing trade license. The petitioner also requested the 3rd respondent to partition the property but the same was not considered. Hence the petitioner submitted a representation on 03.03.2025, to the 1st respondent objecting to the renewal of trade license of the 3rd respondent for running the Gym and also for cancellation of the license. As no action was taken on the petitioner's representation, the petitioner filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that it would suffice, if a direction is issued to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 03.03.2025, on merits within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 prayed for reasonable time to dispose the representation.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited relief sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court directs the first respondent, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.03.2025, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 05.06.2025 dpq Index : Yes /No Speaking Order : Yes/No To
1. The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Building, Chennai - 600 003.
2. The Zonal Officer, Zone XIII (Adyar), No.115, Dr.Muthulakshmi Salai, Adyar, Chennai 600 020.
N. MALA, J.
dpq 05.06.2025