S.MARIAPPAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent, which is nothing but a memo calling upon the petitioner and the owner of the building, who has not been arrayed as a party before us for enquiry.

(2.) On the earlier round of litigation, this Court was pleased to pass the following order in W.P.No.7616 of 2020 on 13.05.2020:-

(3.) Thereafter, the petitioner sent a communication, for which, a reply was given by the 4th respondent in Na.Ka257/2020/R6 dated 12.06.2020 to the effect that the proposal has not been sent since, it appears that the proposed shop is situated within the prohibitory distance and therefore, it has been kept in abeyance temporarily. It is needless to say that this is only a communication sent to the petitioner and that is the reason why neither a copy is marked to the owner of the building nor she has been heard. Thereafter, in compliance with the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7616 of 2020, a memo was sent to both the petitioner and the owner of the building asking them to appear on the appointed date i.e., on 09.07.2020 for enquiry. This memo also states that a measurement will be made in their presence. This memo is sought to be challenged before us.