S.Sarath Babu vs The Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 12191 Mad

                                                                             W.A.No.2734 of 2018

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 22.06.2021

                                                         CORAM

                                      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
                                                       and
                                       THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                                 W.A.No.2734 of 2018

                     S.Sarath Babu                                           .. Appellant

                                                          Vs
                     1.The Commissioner,
                      Corporation of Chennai,
                      Ribbon Building,
                      Chennai-600 003.

                     2.The Executive Engineer,
                        Nadu Water Supply and Sewerage
                        Board, Chennai.                                      .. Respondents

                          Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
                     dated 19.09.2018 made in W.P.No.26388 of 2011.

                               For Appellants        :     Mr.K.M.Ramesh

                               For Respondents       :     Ms. Karthika Ashok
                                                           Senior Standing Counsel for R1

                                                      JUDGMENT

(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)

This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned

single Judge, who after going into the merits of the case, upheld the

revised assessment of the respondent dated 05.08.2011.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.No.2734 of 2018

2.We are of the view that the learned single Judge ought not to

have decided the matter on merit especially when the first respondent

itself has not taken a plea on the earlier occasion that the appellant

has approached the Tribunal by way of filing an appeal. Law is quite

settled on this aspect. In revenue matters, the Court should be slow in

interfering with the decision taken by invoking Article 226 of The

Constitution of India which is otherwise discretionary and extraordinary

in nature.

3.In such view of the matter, we permit the appellant to pay

50% of the amount which is subject matter of the order impugned. For

the purpose of computing the said amount, the amount already paid

by way of interim arrangement before this Court at the time of

entertaining the appeal can be deducted. As the appellant is pursuing

the remedy before this Court, we are inclined to grant four weeks time

to the appellant to file an appeal in the manner aforesaid.

The writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.

                                                                 (M.M.S., J.)    (R.N.M., J.)
                                                                         22.06.2021
                     Index:Yes/No
                     raa/mmi

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.No.2734 of 2018

To

1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ribbon Building, Chennai-600 003.

2.The Executive Engineer, Nadu Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.No.2734 of 2018

M.M.SUNDRESH, J.

and R.N.MANJULA,J.

mmi

W.A.No.2734 of 2018

22.06.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/