K.Mohan Ravi, v. Chennai Metropolitan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.12.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.43017 of 2016 K.Mohan Ravi ..
Petitioner -vs1. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority rep.by its Chief Executive Officer No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore, Chennai 600 008
2. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority rep.by its Member Secretary No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore, Chennai 600 008 ..
Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to dispose off the representation of the petitioner dated 01.02.2016.
For Petitioner :: Mr.M.Raja Sekhar For Respondents ::
Mr.M.Karthikeyan
ORDER
Mr.K.Mohan Ravi, Son of late R.V.Kannan, has come to this Court seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to dispose of his representation dated 1.2.2016, wherein he has requested the Chief Executive Officer of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, the first respondent herein to inform him about the balance sale consideration to be paid by him for the Shop No.69 in 'N' Block having an extent of 150 sq.ft., situated in the Koyambedu Wholesale Market complex.
2. The claim of the petitioner is that his father late R.V.Kannan applied for allotment of a shop to an extent of 150 sq.ft., through his application bearing No.30322 dated 14.11.87 to the respondents and also paid a sum of Rs.16,975/- on 13.1.89 followed by another payment of Rs.10,000/- on 24.4.91. Subsequently, his father was allotted the Shop No.69 in 'N' Block to an extent of 150 sq.ft., at the Koyambedu Wholesale
Market complex to vend vegetables on 15.3.94 on payment of a total sale consideration of Rs.1,47,832/- and accordingly, physical possession of the shop was also handed over to his father. However, after his father died on 26.12.2005, the petitioner has been running the shop in question as his legal representative. But recently he came to know that no sale deed was registered in favour of his father due to non-payment of the balance sale consideration.
Therefore he has made the aforementioned representation to the first respondent to inform him about the balance sale consideration to be paid for the shop. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that as on date, the petitioner has been in physical possession of the shop in question and he has also filed the receipts for payment of a sum of Rs.51,700/- on 29.9.2016 and another sum of Rs.42,310/- on 30.9.2016 to the respondents. Since the first respondent has not acted on his representation, he is before this Court.
3. The learned standing counsel for the respondents also does not dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been in physical possession of the shop in question as on date and he had also paid a sum of Rs.51,700/- on 29.9.2016 vide the receipt No.1215 and another sum of Rs.42,310/- on 30.9.2016 vide the receipt No.1223 issued by the Market Management Committee of the Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex, the first respondent is hereby directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 1.2.2016 on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ss
To
1. The Chief Executive Officer Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore Chennai 600 008
2. The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore Chennai 600 008 +1cc to Mr.M. Rajasekar, Advocate, S.R.No.72696 lrs(CO) md(27/12/2016) W.P.No.43017 of 2016