Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.28 seconds)
R.Saraswathi vs The Assistant Engineer on 3 August, 2022 cites

T.K.Shanmugam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 October, 2015

4. The issue raised by the petitioners has been dealt with by Division Bench of this Court in the case of T.Senthil Kumar vs. Government of Tamil Nadu [2010(3) MLJ 771], and subsequent judgment of the larger Bench in the case of T.K.Shanmugam vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(2015) 8 MLJ 1]. The validity of provisions of the Act 2007 was an issue before the Division Bench. The provisions were held to be constitutionally valid but finding that no process for hearing has been given to abide the principles of natural justice, a direction was given to supply copy of Form-II before, and at the same time, on issuance of Form-III, liberty was given to the party to send objection within a period of two weeks. In case of objection, Form-III notice be treated as show-cause notice and thereby, the respondents to pass appropriate order in reference to objection, before proceeding further to remove the encroachment. The relevant paragraph of the Division Bench judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference:
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 148 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

Government Of Mysore & Ors vs J. V. Bhat, Etc. Etc on 14 October, 1974

“20.In the result, we dispose of the writ petition in the same lines adopting the same method which the Supreme Court done in the two cases cited supra Mysore vs. J.V. Bhat - 1975 (2) S.C.R. 407 and (ii)The Scheduled Caste & Weaker Section Welfare Association vs. State of Karnataka, - 1991 (1) U.J. (S.C.) 628 = AIR 1991 SC 1117 = 1991 (2) SCC 604., where the Supreme Court dealt with the Mysore Slum (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1958 and Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.19856 of 2022 without declaring that the Act is unconstitutional since no opportunity is given, we will hold that there is nothing in the Act which excludes the principles of natural justice. The Act does not specifically indicate that the encroachers do not have a right to be heard and therefore we issue the following directions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 158 - A Alagiriswami - Full Document

T.S. Senthil Kumar vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 February, 2010

4. The issue raised by the petitioners has been dealt with by Division Bench of this Court in the case of T.Senthil Kumar vs. Government of Tamil Nadu [2010(3) MLJ 771], and subsequent judgment of the larger Bench in the case of T.K.Shanmugam vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(2015) 8 MLJ 1]. The validity of provisions of the Act 2007 was an issue before the Division Bench. The provisions were held to be constitutionally valid but finding that no process for hearing has been given to abide the principles of natural justice, a direction was given to supply copy of Form-II before, and at the same time, on issuance of Form-III, liberty was given to the party to send objection within a period of two weeks. In case of objection, Form-III notice be treated as show-cause notice and thereby, the respondents to pass appropriate order in reference to objection, before proceeding further to remove the encroachment. The relevant paragraph of the Division Bench judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference:
Madras High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 191 - P Sridevan - Full Document
1