Madras High CourtWP/25133/2012dismissed

M.Sivakumar v. The Secretary To Govt.,

2015-06-08Honourable The Chief Justice,Honourable Mr Justice T. S. Sivagnanam3 pages

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 08.06.2015 Coram:

The Honourable Mr. SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, Chief Justice and The Honourable Mr. Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM Writ Petition No. 25133 of 2012 and M.P. No.1 of 2012 M. Sivakumar .. Petitioner vs.

1. The Secretary to Government Commercial Tax and Registration Department Fort St. George, Secretariat Chennai 600 009.

2. The Secretary to Government Revenue Department Fort St. George, Chennai.

3. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.

4. The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Rippon Building, Chennai.

5. The Commissioner, Zone - 12 Corporation of Chennai, Alandur, Chennai-16.

6. Jagadeesan

7. M/s. Jayam Construction rep. by Mr. Sampath Kumar No.244, M.T.H. Road Villlivakkam, Chennai-49.

8. M/s. Balaji Nagar Government Employees Welfare and House sites Society rep. by its Secretary Mr.C.Subbiah

9. M/s. Balaji Nagar Government Employees Welfare and House sites Society rep. by its President Mr.N.R.Ramanathan .. Respondents

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to take appropriate action on the petitioner's representation dated 05.07.2012 and reclaim the land gifted by M/s.Balaji Nagar Government Employees Welfare and House sites Society vide Document No.2403/1986 to the fifth respondent previously known as Alandur Municipality.

For Petitioner : Mr. No Appearance For Respondents : Mr. S.T.S. Murthi Government Pleader for R1 to R3 Ms. Karthika Ashok for R4 & R5 Mr. A. Anburasu for R6 Mr. R. Ponnusamy for R7 Mr. P. Raja for R8 and R9.

O R D E R

(Made by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice) On perusal of the pleadings and in view of the counter affidavit filed by respondent nos. 8 and 9, the speculations set forth in the writ petition are stated not to be true. In any case, the matter really does not partake the character of a Public Interest Litigation. None appears for the petitioner, despite the matter being called out in the pre-lunch session and post-lunch session. Learned counsel appearing for the builder/seventh respondent states that any construction will be made only as per the sanctioned plan.

2. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2012 is also dismissed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS III ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar ATR To;