SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ, G.ARUL MURUGAN, J
M.Palani – Appellant
Versus
The Collector Cuddalore District, Cuddalore – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.D.Baskar
For the Respondents:Mr.V.Veeramani, Government Advocate for R1 and R2, Mr.V.Gunasekar, Standing Counsel for R3

Challenge to notice dated 28.8.2025 on the ground that it is permissible under law for the petitioner to continue with the present commercial activity of running a Wood Works shop is liable to be rejected at the threshold, because the petitioner was party to W.P.No.9626 of 2024 , wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that no industry can be permitted in residential area and directed the authorities to ensure that commercial activity is suspended.

2. The notice impugned in this writ petition has been issued pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9626 of 2024 . The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the said order. That apart, the petitioner has not placed any shred of material in support of his plea that commercial activity is permitted in residential area.

The petition is, therefore, misconceived and not maintainable. The writ petition is,accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim application stands closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top