K.Ravi v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.11.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Review Application (Writ) No.119 of 2022 1.K.Ravi 2.P.Santhosh .. Review Petitioners

Versus

1.The District Collector, Chennai District, Chennai.

2.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ribon Building, Chennai - 3.

3.The Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central), Greater Chennai Corporation, Regional Office - Central, 2nd Cross Street (East), Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai - 30.

4.The Tahsildar, Nungambakkam-Egmore Taluk, Chennai District.

5.T.Sethuraman .. Respondents Prayer: Review Petition has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C. to review the order dated 26.04.2022 passed in W.P.No.6652 of 2022. 1/4

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thanjan For R1 and R4 : Mr.P.Muthukumar, State Govt. Pleader For R2 and R3 : Mr.A.Arunbabu, Corporation of Chennai For R5 : Mr.V.Jai Harisudhan

ORDER

(Order of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice) Writ petitioners have filed this review petition to review the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.6652 of 2022, dated 26.04.2022, by which, the prayer of the writ petitioners challenging the impugned notice dated 28.02.2022 directing them to remove the construction raised on the road belonging to the Greater Chennai Corporation was rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the review petitioners submitted that the subject temple is situated on the edge of the street on the western side and it is a small one, therefore, the question of obstruction or disturbance to the general public does not arise. It is further submitted that for shifting the construction to establish it to somewhere else in the Village as suggested by this Court, it requires considerable time after finding a suitable place to establish the temple.

3. But, we do not find any merit in the above said submissions. It is settled law that 2/4

the review is permissible only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. But, in the case on hand, no ground is made out in the affidavit filed in support of the review application to review the order passed by this Court. Therefore, finding no error apparent on the face of record, we are inclined to dismiss the review application and accordingly, it is dismissed. No Costs.

(T.R., ACJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 11.11.2022 rkm To 1.The District Collector, Chennai District, Chennai.

2.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ribon Building, Chennai - 3.

3.The Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central), Greater Chennai Corporation, Regional Office - Central, 2nd Cross Street (East), Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai - 30.

4.The Tahsildar, Nungambakkam-Egmore Taluk, Chennai District.

3/4

THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

rkm Review Application (Writ) No.119 of 2022 11.11.2022 4/4