Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 1000
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. JAICHANDREN, J.
A.N. Duraisamy & Others
Versus
Commissioner Corporation of Coimbatore & Another
Writ Petition Nos. 1114, 1115, 1116, 1117 & 1118 of 2013 & M.P. No. 1 of 2013
Decided On: 18-02-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:R. Bharath Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:J. Sathya Narayana Prasad, Advocate.
The court emphasized the importance of following due process of law in any action related to the possession of the shop.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Possession of Shop - The court closed the writ petition as there was no proposal to evict the petitioner from the shop and any such action would be done following due process of law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus to prevent interference with their possession and enjoyment of a shop without following due process of law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no proposal to evict the petitioner from the shop and any such action would be done following due process of law. As a result, the writ petition was closed with no costs.
Issues: Interference with possession and enjoyment of the shop, due process of law
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the absence of any proposal to evict the petitioner from the shop and the assurance that any such action would be taken following due process of law.
Final Decision: The writ petition was closed with no costs.
1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents herein from, in any way, interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Stage Shop No.E52, situated in Panneerselvam Flower Market (Old), Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore-1, without following the due process of law.
2. At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel Mr.J.Sathya Narayana Prasad, appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that there is no proposal to evict the petitioner from the shop in question and that there is no proposal to demolish the shop in question, at present. It is also submitted, by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, that if there is a proposal to evict the petitioner from the shop in question, it shall be done only by following the due process of law. The said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is recorded.
3. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that a similar order has been passed, on 30.10.2012, in W.P.Nos.25347 to 25349 of 2012, wherein, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation has made a similar submission.
4. In such circumstances, as no orders are necessary, the present Writ Petition stands closed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2013 is also closed.
