G.Aaro Selvam vs The Commissioner

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 15625 Mad
Judgement Date : 21 September, 2022

Madras High Court
G.Aaro Selvam vs The Commissioner on 21 September, 2022
                                                                       W.A(MD)No.987 of 2014

                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED : 21.09.2022

                                                      CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
                                                        and
                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

                                               W.A(MD)No.987 of 2014
                                                       and
                                                M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2014


                     G.Aaro Selvam                               ... Appellant/Petitioner


                                                         Vs.

                     The Commissioner,
                     Bodinayakanoor Municipality,
                     Theni District.                             ...Respondent /Respondent



                     PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent

                     praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in

                     W.P(MD)No.8734 of 2014, dated 13.06.2014.


                                     For Appellant    : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
                                     For Respondent   : Mr.M.Karuppasamy Pandian


                     1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                       W.A(MD)No.987 of 2014




                                                     JUDGMENT

J. NISHA BANU, J.

AND N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

The subject matter of challenge in the present writ appeal pertains to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the W.P(MD) No.8734 of 2014 by an order, dated 13.06.2014, refusing to interfere with the impugned notice issued by the respondent Municipality.

2.Heard Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.M.Karuppasamy Pandian, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. We have carefully gone through the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge at paragraph No.8 of the order and we do not find any ground to interfere with the same. That apart, a counter-

affidavit has also been filed by the respondent and it is seen that the 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.987 of 2014 respondent Municipality has already taken possession in the year 2014 itself and the lodge was demolished and new shops were constructed.

4. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that after the shops were constructed, it was also let out after calling for tender and this process has been completed twice till date.

5. In view of the above, nothing survives for consideration in this Writ Appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

[J.N.B, J.] & [N.A.V., J.] 21.09.2022 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No rm 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.987 of 2014 J. NISHA BANU, J.

AND N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

rm JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A(MD)No.987 of 2014 21.09.2022 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis