V.Ganesan v. The Executive Officer

O R D E R The petitioner has challenged a notice dated 03.08.2016 in relation to a shop, which was then under the occupation of the petitioner.

2.Learned Government Advocate submits that the premises was taken possession of and handed over to a third party on account of non payment of lease rental by the petitioner. These contentions are not refuted by learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition.

¶3Accordingly, W.P.(MD).No.14788 of 2016 is dismissed as infructuous without any order as to costs. The respondent is at liberty to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law to recover the lease rent arrears from the petitioner. Consequently, W.M.P.(MD).Nos.10932 to 10934 of 2016 are closed.

15.03.2023 NCC :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No sbn To The Executive Officer, Town Panchayat (Selection Grade), Sathankulam, Tuticorin District. W.P.(Mi)No.14788oofo2016 SENTHILKUMARoRAMAMOORTHY,oJ. sbn W.P.(MD)No.14788oofo2016 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.10932otoo10934oofo2016

15.03.2023 Pageo4oofo4

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :15.03.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.10932 to 10934 of 2016 V.Ganesan ... Petitioner Vs. The Executive Officer, Town Panchayat (Selection Grade), Sathankulam, Tuticorin District. ... Respondent PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned notice passed by the respondent dated 03.08.2016 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to unlock the seal Bakery of the petitioner in shop No.15 Bus Stand Complex, Sathankulam, Tuticorin District. For Petitioner :Mr.J.Jeyakumaran For Respondent :Mr.S.Kameswaran Government Advocate