K.Muthu Reddiar, v. The Zonal Officer,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.01.2022 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR Writ Petition No.10281 of 2014 and M.P.No.2 of 2014 K.Muthu Reddiar .... Petitioner -Vs1.The Zonal Officer Corporation of Chennai Zone-15 Sholinganallur, Chennai - 119.
2.Varadambal .... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent made in proceedings No.Ma.A.15.Va Thu. Na.Ka.R1/ No.341/2012 dated 2.10.2012 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Umapathi For Respondents : Ms.P.T.Ramadevi Standing Counsel - for R1 Mr.J.Sudhakaran - for R2
O R D E R
The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent made in proceedings No.Ma.A.15.Va Thu. Na.Ka.R1/ No.341/2012 dated 2.10.2012 and quash the same.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the first respondent Corporation dated 02.10.2012, under which, in respect of the property at No.21, East Coast Road, Kudimiyandi Thoppu, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 110 there was a communication that, since there was a dispute with regard to the assessment and levy of property tax by the first respondent for which earlier a communication had been sent by the first respondent to the petitioner on 03.09.2012, fixing the date of enquiry as 05.09.2012, however, on the said date since the
petitioner did not appear, the assessment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled, as against which the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
3. It is the stand of the petitioner that, the earlier notice dated 03.09.2012 fixing the date of hearing as 05.09.2012 itself was served on the petitioner on 15.09.2012. Therefore, there was no chance for the petitioner to appear in the enquiry on 05.09.2012 and therefore, that reason cannot be stated for passing the impugned order.
4. However, Mr.J.Sudhakaran, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that, the second respondent is the owner of the property and the petitioner is only a tenant under the second respondent. Therefore, the question of levying any tax on the petitioner in respect of the property does not arise.
5. The learned counsel for the second respondent, on instructions, would submit that, subsequently during the pendency of the writ petition, the second respondent filed RCOP proceedings and the said petition was ordered. Accordingly, in the year 2019 itself, eviction order was passed and the petitioner has vacated the premises and he is no more residing in the premises and therefore, the question of challenging the impugned order does not arise and virtually the prayer sought for in the writ petition has become infructuous, he contended.
6. The said position has not been controverted by the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent Corporation.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, by taking into account the subsequent development, where the petitioner himself has vacated the premises in question, as has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the second respondent, nothing survives in the writ petition, as the very impugned order dated 02.10.2012 itself has become infructuous insofar as the petitioner is concerned, therefore, recording these developments, this writ petition is dismissed as no further orders are required to be passed.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VI) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar KST
To The Zonal Officer Corporation of Chennai Zone-15 Sholinganallur, Chennai - 119.
W.P.No. 10281 of 2014 PVS(CO) GMY(31/01/2022)