Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
ER.T.SUBRAMANI, S/O.THAMBUSAMY – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP 5624/2010
['M/S A SIVAJI', '', 'R KRISHNAN & K DHANANJAYAN', 'S JEEVITHA RAMANI', 'P T KANNAN', 'AGP W', '', 'M/S S SOUNTHAR', 'B JAWAHAR', 'M/S HASAN MOHAMED JINNAH', 'K TIPPUSULTHAN']
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.07.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
W.P.No.5624 of 2010
1. Er.T.Subramanian
2. T.Kannan
... Petitioners
(Transposed the 11th respondent as the 2nd petitioner as per order
of this Court dated 29.11.2011 in MP.No.1 of 2011)
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Nagapattinam.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Nagapattinam.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Mayiladuthurai.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Mayiladuthurai.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Mayiladuthurai.
6.The Executive Engineer, Buildings
(Construction & Maintenance) Division,
P.W.D., Nagapattinam.
7.The Commissioner,
Mayiladuthurai Municipality,
Mayiladuthurai.
8.The Town Planning Officer,
Mayiladuthurai.
9.K.Murugan
10.R.Kalidas
... Respondents
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents,
especially respondents 1, 6 and 7 to restrain the private
respondents 9 to 11 from proceeding further with the
construction in R.S.No.374 of Mayiladuthurai and using the same
for any purpose forthwith.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Sivaji
For R1 to R6 : Mr.J.Ramesh, AGP
For R7 & R8 : Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah
For R9 & R10 : Mr.S.Sounthar
ORDER
The relief sought for in this writ petition is to issue a
writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1, 6 and 7 to
restrain the private respondents 9 and 10 from proceeding
further with regard to the construction in R.S.No.374 of
Mayiladuthurai and using the same for any purpose.
2.When the matter was taken up for consideration, the
learned counsel for the respondents 9 and 10, on instructions,
submitted that the construction sought to be restrained, had
already been completed and the Civil Suit filed by the first
petitioner, claiming the similar relief as sought for in this
writ petition, had also been dismissed and hence, nothing
survives for adjudication.
3.Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned
counsel for the respondents 9 and 10, this writ petition stands
closed, leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the
authority concerned, if the construction said to be completed is
without any approval from the competent authority. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rk
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
To
1.The District Collector, Nagapattinam.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Mayiladuthurai.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mayiladuthurai.
5.The Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai.
6.The Executive Engineer, Buildings
(Construction & Maintenance) Division,
P.W.D., Nagapattinam.
7.The Commissioner, Mayiladuthurai Municipality,
Mayiladuthurai.
8.The Town Planning Officer, Mayiladuthurai.
+1cc to Mr.A.SIVAJI, Advocate, S.R.No.43369
+1cc to Mr.S.SOUNTHAR, Advocate, S.R.No.43938
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 44059
W.P.No.5624 of 2010
KGK(CO)
TR(07/08/2018)
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
