Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2923 (MAD)

Rajeswari Ayyamuthu v. V. Sivakumar

2023-08-24

P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. We have heard Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 4. 2. The present first respondent had filed a writ petition bearing No.35424 of 2015 before the learned Single Judge challenging the order dated 19.12.2012 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer directing removal of fencing over an area of the park. 3. The learned Single Judge, under order dated 25.11.2022, set aside the said order and further gave liberty to the original writ petitioner to make further representation to the Commissioner of Municipality regarding the nuisance that is caused by the fifth respondent therein, i.e., the present appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the earlier objection raised by the original writ petitioner was already rejected. The same is not challenged by him. The objection was already enquired into and, as such, fresh enquiry would not be necessary, nor is contemplated. 5. As far as the order directing removal of fencing over the park is concerned, the appellant should not be aggrieved thereby. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is not using the park for her business purpose. The business carried out by the appellant is permitted as per the regulations and all necessary licences and no-objections have been obtained. 7. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has only given liberty to the original writ petitioner to make further representation to Commissioner of Municipality regarding the nuisance that is caused by the appellant herein. The third respondent, i.e., the Commissioner, would be entitled to enquire into the matter. The learned Single Judge has not issued directions against the present appellant in whatsoever manner. Naturally, if any complaint is entertained, the authority will have to look into the provisions of the statute, regulations and will also have to consider the stand of the present appellant before passing any order. The learned Single Judge has not arrived at any finding about the business carried out by the present appellant. 8. In view of the fact that no directions are given with regard to the business of the present appellant and as the third respondent will have to consider the stand of the parties before taking any action, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal, as such, stands disposed of. The writ appeal, as such, stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.19074 of 2023 is closed.