A.R.Sivakami, v. The Commissioner Of Madurai

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.01.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015 A.R.Sivakami ... Petitioner -vs1.The Commissioner of Madurai Corporation Office of the Commissioner Annamaligai Madurai, Madurai District 2.The Deputy Director Town and Country Planning No.4, Hakkim Amalkhan Road Chinnna Chokikulam Madurai 3.The Member Secretary (in charge) Local Planning Authority Madurai Madurai District 4.Dr.Meiyappan ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to initiate appropriate action to remove unauthorized construction made by the fourth respondent in Door No.55, Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai District. For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Rajasekar For Respondents :

Mr.S.Vinayak for R1 No appearance for R2 Mr.T.Amjadkhan Government Advocate for R3 Mr.S.Poornachandran for R4

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.] Prayer in this writ petition is to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to initiate appropriate action to remove the unauthorized construction made by the fourth respondent in Door No.55, Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai District.

2. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that the fourth respondent has obtained a revised plan as early as on 23.11.2007 much prior to the filing of this writ petition. However, without disclosing the said fact, the

petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

3. It is seen that this writ petition is of the year 2015; on 23.11.2007 itself, the fourth respondent has obtained a revised plan; though the fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the month of March, 2016, till date the petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit to the same. Hence, for all these reasons, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition at this length of time.

4. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner is still aggrieved, it is open to him to workout his remedy before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

[D.K.K., J.] [M.S.K., J.] 09.01.2024 NCC :

Yes / No Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No krk

To:

The Member Secretary (in charge), Local Planning Authority, Madurai, Madurai District.

D.KRISHNAKUMAR , J.

and MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

krk and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015 09.01.2024