Skip to content


B. Shanmugam Vs. The Commissioner, Kumbakonam Municipality, Municipality Office, Thanjavur District and Another - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P.(MD)No. 958 of 2012 & M.P(MD)Nos. 1 & 2 of 2012
Judge
AppellantB. Shanmugam
RespondentThe Commissioner, Kumbakonam Municipality, Municipality Office, Thanjavur District and Another
Excerpt:
.....directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to maintain the canal running behind 11/a1, hajiyar street , kumbakonam as per the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 25.08.2011, vide resolution number 143 of the 2nd respondent municipality.) 1. this writ petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to maintain the canal running behind 11/a1, hajiyar street , kumbakonam as per the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 25.08.2011, vide resolution number 143 of the 2nd respondent municipality. 2. after some elaborate arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it would be sufficed if the representation of the petitioner, dated 27.06.2011, is disposed of, by the second.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the Petitioner to maintain the canal running behind 11/A1, Hajiyar Street , Kumbakonam as per the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 25.08.2011, vide Resolution Number 143 of the 2nd Respondent Municipality.)

1. This writ petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the Petitioner to maintain the canal running behind 11/A1, Hajiyar Street , Kumbakonam as per the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 25.08.2011, vide Resolution Number 143 of the 2nd Respondent Municipality.

2. After some elaborate arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it would be sufficed if the representation of the petitioner, dated 27.06.2011, is disposed of, by the second respondent, on merits and in accordance with law, within the time stipulated by this Court.

3. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner, dated 27.06.2011, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //