Madras High CourtWP/33307/2016disposed of

A.Vimala, v. The Commissioner,

2017-03-21Honourable Mr Justice M.M.Sundresh4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.03.2017 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH WRIT PETITION NO.33307 OF 2016 AND WMP NO.28776 OF 2016 A.Vimala ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Rippon Building, Chennai - 600 003.

2.The Deputy Commissioner (Revenue and Finance) Corporation of Chennai Rippon Building, Chennai - 600 003.

3.The Regional Deputy Commissioner (North) Office of the Regional Deputy Commissioner Corporation of Chennai No.62, Basin Bridge Road, Old Washermenpet, Chennai - 600 021.

4.The Revenue Officer Revenue Department Corporation of Chennai Rippon Building, Chennai - 600 003.

5.The Zonal Officer Zone IV Corporation of Chennai Old Washermenpet, Chennai - 600 021.

6.The Assistant Revenue Officer Zone IV Division 36 Corporation of Chennai Old Washermenpet, Chennai - 600 021.

7.The Assistant District Officer Office of the Fire & Rescue Department Chennai City North, High Court Campus, Esplanade, Chennai - 600 104.

8.N.S.Chandran Proprietor Madurai Pandiyan Chettinad Hotel 116/1, Erukkencherry High Road, Sharma Nagar, Chennai - 600 039.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records and quash the order passed by the 5th respondent vide Ma.A4.Na.Ka.No.R1/4671/2016 dated 06.09.2016 and further direct the 5th respondent to close the hotel namely Madurai Pandiyan Chettinad Hotel at 116/1, Erukkencherry High Road, Sharma Nagar, Chennai - 600039 run by the 8th respondent.

For Petitioner :

Mr.L.N.Praghasam For Respondents 1-7:

Mr.P.V.Selvakumar For Respondent 8 :

Mr.V.P.Raju

O R D E R

The petitioner, being the landlady of the respondent no.8, has come forward to file the present writ petition challenging the order dated 06.09.2016, passed by the fifth respondent, on the grounds that the license issued is not in compliance with law.

2. A perusal of the impugned order would show that it was passed primarily on the ground of pendency of the civil suit, which has been disposed of now.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent, the following statement has been made:

"9. I respectfully submit that further action against the 8th respondent will be initiated by following rules in force."

4. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the fifth respondent will have to be directed to issue fresh notice to the petitioner and the respondent no.8, on the issue of continuation of license issued already. Such an

adjudication has to be computed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after due notice to the petitioner and the eighth respondent.

5. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Rippon Building, Chennai - 600 003.