Cricket World Cup 2019

Nation Current Affairs 11 Jun 2019 Madras high court sl ...

Madras high court slates playschool petitioner for repeated pleas

DECCAN CHRONICLE.
Published Jun 11, 2019, 5:12 am IST
Updated Jun 11, 2019, 5:12 am IST
According to petitioner, her husband became a tenant in the first floor of the premises situated at Rukmani Street, Kalakshetra Colony in Adyar.
Madras high court
 Madras high court

Chennai: Deprecating the conduct of a person (petitioner) for filing repeated petitions for the very same relief, the Madras high court said filing of review petition is not a ground to interfere with the order of the Greater Chennai Corporation, which directed her to shift the playschool being run by her in Adyar.

Dismissing a petition filed by Sioma Priscilla, a division bench comprising Justices S.Vaidyanathan and Subramonium Prasad said the present petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and the petitioner is now getting into the habit of filing repeated writ petitions for the very same relief.

 

“The conduct of the petitioner is deprecated. One cannot be permitted to file petitions one after another for achieving the very same object. Even though the petition deserves to be dismissed with cost, but yet we refrain from doing so hoping that the petitioner would not indulge in filing further writ petitions for the very same cause”, the bench added.

According to petitioner, her husband became a tenant in the first floor of the premises situated at Rukmani Street, Kalakshetra Colony in Adyar.

The ground floor of the property was vacated. She and her friend Kiran Fathima were on the lookout for premises for running a playschool and took on lease the ground floor of the tenanted premises. She and her friend started a play school under the name and style “ikidz” by spending Rs 40 lakh.

The owner of the property manipulated and initiated proceedings against her and got the premises sealed on September 12, 2018. The Chennai Corporation also issued a notice to her to vacate the premises.

She preferred an appeal and the authorities dismissed the same. Pursuant to the same, the Chennai corporation initiated action and directed her to shift (de-occupy) the premises by order dated March 7, 2019. She challenged the said order and the First bench of this court dismissed the same. Thereafter she filed a review petition. During the pendency of the review petition, the Chennai Corporation passed the present order to shift the playschool. Hence, she filed the present petition, she added.

Noting that the petitioner had made categorical statement that they were willing to shift the school to some other place, the bench said, “We are of the view that the order passed by the Executive Engineer-1, Zone XIII, Adyar, directing the petitioner to de-occupy the premises has been found to be correct and this court did not interfere with the dismissal of the appeal and therefore, the consequential order has been passed by the authorities directing the petitioner to de-occupy/vacate the premises”.

The impugned order was only based on the order passed by this court earlier. No fault can be found in the impugned order. The fact that the petitioner has filed a review petition was not a ground for interfering with the order of the Chennai Corporation. Review petition will be dealt with on its own merit, the bench added.

...


Cricket World Cup 2019


ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT