Meenakshi Sundaram.P.K @ Nagarajan v. The Commissioner

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.08.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR P.K.Meenakshi Sundaram @ Nagarajan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Aringar Anna Maligai, Tallakulam, Madurai-625002.

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Zonal No.3(Center), West Mart Street, Madurai-625001.

...Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to pass appropriate order by consider the petitioner's representation, dated 16.07.2022 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mrs.S.Devasena Standing Counsel

ORDER

This petition has been filed for writ of Mandamus seeking direction of the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 16.07.2022.

1/4

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner's property is situated in old Zone No.3, new Zone No.4 in Thalavai Akraharam Street falling within old Ward No.74, new Ward No.47, Corporation of Madurai City. Though the property has been assessed as commercial property, the same is not recorded in their records and still in the records, the property reflected as residential property. The petitioner had sent a representation so far no action was taken.

3. The Assistant Commissioner, namely, Mrs.Chitra appeared before this Court and produced the assessment papers. It is seen that manual assessments were made, the property has been classified as commercial property and the assessment order could not be immediately given to the petitioner for the reason that now all tax particulars and revision to be uploaded in Urban Trees Implementation System (UTIS), which is under the control of Commissioner of Municipal Administration (CMA), Chennai. Since the server is not responded, the conversion though manually done could not be uploaded. Once it is uploaded, revision would be made and informed to the petitioner about the same and also produced the relevant papers.

4. Considering the submission and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that already the respondents had taken steps for revision of the property from 2/4

residential to commercial. It is only due to technical hitch, it could not be done immediately, for which the second respondent cannot be blamed and found fault.

5. This Court hopes that the hitch would be removed and the process of Urban Trees Implementation System (UTIS) can be completed within a period of two months. Soon after the conversion, the same to be informed to the petitioner. Since the server is with the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai, forward the copy to CMA. The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

25.08.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No sn To 1.The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Dindigul District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Sanarpatti Police Station, Sanarpatti, Dindigul District.

3.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai.

3/4

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

sn 25.08.2022 4/4