G.Kala Vs. State Commissioner for Differently Abled

G.Kala vs State Commissioner for Differently Abled

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 06, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/964865

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/964865
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: M.Jaichandren
Decided On: Feb 06, 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

G.Kala

Respondent

State Commissioner for Differently Abled

Excerpt

.....corporation of chennai, rippon buildings, chenna”003. .. respondents prayer: petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 1.11.2012 in the light of the orders passed in wp no.20935 of 2010 dated 12.11.2010 and till final decision is taken, not to disturb the running of the petitioner's shop situated at no.7/2, sivaprakasam street, backside of corporation ward office, chennai-17, by selling coffee, tea and allied food items. for petitioner : mr.l. chandrakumar for r.1 : mr.r. vijayakumar, agp for r.2 : mr.m. govindaraj o r d e r heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the representation of the petitioner, dated 1.11.2012, may be directed to be considered by the second respondent in view of the order passed by the full bench of this court, dated 5.11.2012, in wp nos.30348 to 30352, 30363 and 27362 of 2011.3. the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents have no objection for such an order being passed by this court.4. in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 1.11.2012, in view of the observations made by the full bench of this court, in wp nos.30348 to 30352, 30363 and 27362 of 2011, dated 5.11.2012, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.5. accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. no costs. sr to 1. the state commissioner for differently abled, o/o. state commissioner for differently abled, nehru inner ring road, k.k. nagar, chennai-60”2. the commissioner,.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:

6. 2.2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.31556 of 2012 G.Kala .. Petitioner Vs 1. The State Commissioner for Differently Abled, O/o. State Commissioner for differently Abled, Nehru Inner Ring Road, K.K. Nagar, Chennai-60”

2. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chenna”

003. .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 1.11.2012 in the light of the orders passed in WP No.20935 of 2010 dated 12.11.2010 and till final decision is taken, not to disturb the running of the petitioner's shop situated at No.7/2, Sivaprakasam Street, Backside of Corporation Ward Office, Chennai-17, by selling coffee, tea and allied food items. For petitioner : Mr.L. Chandrakumar For R.1 : Mr.R. Vijayakumar, AGP For R.2 : Mr.M. Govindaraj O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the representation of the petitioner, dated 1.11.2012, may be directed to be considered by the second respondent in view of the order passed by the Full Bench of this Court, dated 5.11.2012, in WP Nos.30348 to 30352, 30363 and 27362 of 2011.

3. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents have no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.

4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 1.11.2012, in view of the observations made by the Full Bench of this Court, in WP Nos.30348 to 30352, 30363 and 27362 of 2011, dated 5.11.2012, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. sr To 1. The State Commissioner for Differently Abled, O/o. State Commissioner for Differently Abled, Nehru Inner Ring Road, K.K. Nagar, Chennai-60”