Madras High CourtWP/33547/2015disposed of

S.Sugumar, v. The Secretary

2015-12-21Honourable Dr. Justice P. Devadass,Honourable Mr Justice Satish K. Agnihotri3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21/12/2015 C O R A M THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI and THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE P. DEVADASS W.P. No.33547 of 2015 S. Sugumar

...Petitioner

1. The Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai.9.

2. The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District.

3. The Director, Directorate of Town and Country Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai.2.

4. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Door No.239, Phase III, Sathuvacheri, Vellore.

5. The Municipal Commissioner, Thiruvannamalai Municipality, Sannathi Street, Tiruvannamalai.

6. Dr. N. Inbanesan

...Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to take action as per the notice Na.Ka.No.4806/2013/F1, dated 17.08.2015 against the unauthorised construction by locking and sealing the building and also by demolishing the illegal structure put by the sixth respondent at No.22, Big Street, Thiruvannamalai.

For petitioner : Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy Sr. Counsel for Mr. Hari Radhakrishnan For Respondents : Mr. N. Sakthivel Govt. Advocate - R1 to R4 Mr. Vijay Narayan Sr. Counsel for M/s. S. Eraskine Leo - R5 Mr. K. Govi Ganesan - R6

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI,J.,) With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. Seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 5 to take action as per the notice dated 17 August, 2015 issued by the fifth respondent, the instant writ petition is filed.

3. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the alleged unauthorised construction made by the sixth respondent is continuing at Door No. 22, Big Street, Thiruvannamalai Town. Despite the best efforts taken by the petitioner, the same could not be removed.

4. We are informed that as against the order dated 17 August, 2015, the appeal filed by the 6th respondent was rejected. Thereagainst, a revision has been filed by the sixth respondent and the same is pending consideration before the fourth respondent and there is an application for interim relief also.

5. Having regard to the fact situation of the case, with the consent of the parties, the fourth respondent/revisional authority is directed to examine the revision and take a decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. This writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ra