Madras High Court
T.A.Prabhakaran Pillai vs The Assistant Director / Member ... on 12 February, 2019
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.02.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD) No.11616 of 2018
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.10584 of 2018
T.A.Prabhakaran Pillai ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Assistant Director / Member Secretary,
Trichirapalli Local Planning Authority,
Trichy District.
2.The Assistant Director,
Land Survey, Trichy District.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Woraiyur Sub-Registrar Office, Trichy.
4.The Block Development Officer,
Manikandam Panchayat Union,
Trichy District.
5.A.Kumaresan ... Respondents
(Respondent No.5 is impleaded as per the
order of this Court dated 12.02.2019 in
W.M.P.(MD).No.13155 of 2018)
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the
records relating to the impugned demand notice issued by the first
respondent in Na.Ka.No.412/2018, thiuthiku 2, dated 23.05.2018 and
quash the same as illegal.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Petitioner : Mr.A.L.Kannan
For M/s.T.Pon Ramkumar
For R1 to R4 : Mr.M.Murugan
Government Advocate
For R5 : Mr.S.Paulmurugesh
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2.The writ petitioner is a promoter of a lay out. He was given permission vide proceedings dated 05.04.2018 and the same was cancelled on 23.05.2018 by the first respondent. Challenging the same, this Writ petition has been filed.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to the fact that the impugned order of cancellation rests on the complaint dated 09.05.2018 and 21.05.2018, given by one A.Kumaresan. According to the said petitioner, the said kumaresan is a rival promoter The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would point out that the impugned order has been passed on 23.05.2018, without even putting the petitioner on notice.
4.I am of the view that violation of principles of natural justice is ex-facie evident. The petitioner had given an application http://www.judis.nic.in 3 earlier and the same was also allowed. The petitioner was asked to pay a sum of Rs.13,49,700/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs only) towards regularisation fee. Therefore, the civil rights of the petitioner could not been trampled under foot by the first respondent.
5.In this view of the matter, the order impugned in the Writ Petition stands set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. It is open to the first respondent to initiate appropriate proceedings and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.02.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
tsg
To
1.The Assistant Director / Member Secretary, Trichirapalli Local Planning Authority, Trichy District.
2.The Assistant Director, Land Survey, Trichy District.
3.The Sub-Registrar, Woraiyur Sub-Registrar Office, Trichy.
4.The Block Development Officer, Manikandam Panchayat Union, Trichy District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J, tsg W.P.(MD) No.11616 of 2018 12.02.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in