← Library
Madras High CourtWP/22049/2016disposed of

A.Srinivasan v. The Commissioner

2016-06-28Honourable Mr Justice T. S. Sivagnanam2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28.6.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM Writ Petition No.22049 of 2016 A.Srinivasan

...Petitioner

Vs 1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai-3.

2.The Revenue Officer, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai-3.

...Respondents

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pass orders on merits on the representation of the petitioner dated 19.4.2016.

For Petitioner :

Ms.C.Harsha Raj For Respondents :

Ms.Karthika Ashok

ORDER

Ms.Karthika Ashok, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents. Heard both. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 19.4.2016.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is in occupation of one of the shops in a building consisting of three shops and when the Tax Collector came to the premises demanding payment of property tax, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.35,000/- by way of a cheque dated 24.3.2016, being 1/3rd share of the entire tax payable for the building. This, according to the petitioner, should have been apportioned only to his share and not in respect of the other two shops, which are not in occupation of the petitioner. However, the Tax Collector received the said sum of Rs.35,000/- by way of cheque and issued a receipt.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation to the respondents to rectify the mistake and give credit to the payment effected by the petitioner only with respect to the shop, which is in his occupation. The said representation is pending before the respondents and has not yet been considered till date.

5. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that reasonable time may be granted to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the contention raised by the petitioner in the said representation, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.4.2016 on merits and in accordance with law, pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai-3.

2.The Revenue Officer, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai-3.

+1 cc to Mr.A.Karthika Ashok, Advocate,SR.36061 +1 cc to Mr.Raj & Raj Associates, Advocate,SR.36663. pvs(co) krd 14/7 WP.No.22049 of 2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/