Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 950 (MAD)

R. Rose v. The Managing Director, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Others

2010-03-02

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the fourth respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal, dated 21.3.2003, filed under Section 113A(6), read with Section 79 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period. 4. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents, has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the fourth respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal, dated 21.3.2003, filed under Section 113A(6), read with Section 79 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as well as to the other parties concerned, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.