VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2023 › High Court of Madras

Kumarapandi K v. Madurai Corporation

DISPOSED OF
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
27 November 2023
Bench
G.R.Swaminathanauthor
Case no.
WP(MD) 27692/2023

Judgment

ORDER Heard both sides.

¶2The petitioner challenges the order dated 01.06.2015 passed by the second respondent effecting mutation in favour of the third respondent.

¶3I am not inclined to entertain this petition for the reason that challenge has been mounted belatedly. The petitioner is given liberty to file a formal petition before the first respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that such a petition will be filed by the first respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such a petition is filed, the same will be numbered and final order shall be passed by the first respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent will hear the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent before passing the final order. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter.

¶4The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

27.11.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. rmi

27.11.2023

Case details

Parties and counsel

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.11.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.23804 & 23805 of 2023 K.Kumarapandi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Madurai Corporation Through its Commissioner, Anna Maligai, Madurai. 2.The Assistant Commissioner(Revenue) Madurai Corporation, Madurai. 3.K.Chelladurai. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relates to the impugned order issued by the 2nd respondent in MaVa. 2/0016839/15 dated 01.06.2015 and quash the same as it is arbitrary and illegal due to lack of jurisdiction and in consequence to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to restore the allotment of Shop No.392 in Mattuthavani Central Vegetable Centre in petitioner name forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinayak Standing Counsel for R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Govindarajan for R3

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.