T. Philomena, v. The Commissioner,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.11.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU W.P.[MD].No.14006 of 2016 T.Philomena : Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Madurai Municipal Corporation, Arignar Anna Maligai, Tallakulam, Madurai - 2.

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Corporation of Madurai, Division - I, T.B. Road, Madurai - 1.

3.The Executive Engineer, Town Planning Section, Madurai Municipal Corporation, Arignar Anna Maligai, Tallakulam, Madurai - 2.

4.V.Subramani : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1 to 3rd Respondents to take appropriate action against the 4th respondent based on petitioner's representation dated 15.06.2016 by demolishing the 2 storey building constructed by the 4th respondent on northern side of the petitioner's residential house without getting any permission from the 1 to 3rd respondents. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mohamed Kadhar For Respondents : Mr.N.Shanmugaselvam 1 to 3 For 4th Respondent : Mr.M.Rajarajan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.] The petitioner has come up with this Public Interest Litigation with the following prayer:

"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an order or orders or writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1 to 3rd Respondents to take appropriate action against the 4th respondent based on petitioner's representation dated 15.06.2016 by demolishing the 2 storey building constructed by the 4th respondent on northern side of the petitioner's residential house without getting any permission from the 1to 3rd respondents and pass orders within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents. We have also perused the records carefully.

3. The petitioner has not given the details of the land upon which the 4th respondent allegedly constructed a residential building without getting prior permission. In the absence of clear identity it is not possible for us to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner. This writ petition deserves to be dismissed for giving vague details.

4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate writ petition with all the details. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To +1 cc to M/s.S.Mohamed Kadhar, Advocate in SR.No.64536 +1 cc to M/s.N.Shanmuga Selvam, Advocate in SR.No. 65154 +1 cc to M/s.M.Rajarajan, Advocate in SR.No.65165 sj CSL/PV/14.11.2016: 2p/4c Order made in W.P.[MD].No.14006 of 2016 Dated: 01.11.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/