1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).No.3700 of 2011 Somasundaram Chettiar Higher Secondary School, Represented by its Secretary R.M.Somasundaram, Okkur, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai District. .. Petitioner Vs. The Tahsildar Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai District .. Respondent Prayer:- Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings in Na.Ka.A1- 16278/2010 dated 05.03.2011 by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to issue public building license for the petitioners school from the period 2001 – 2010. For Petitioner : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondent : Mr.K.Balasubramanian Addl.Govt.Pleader ORDER The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition challenging the proceedings of the respondent in Na.Ka.A1-16278/2010, dated 05.03.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to issue public building license for the petitioners school from the period 2001–2010. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner School would contend that there was a land dispute between the School and the Government. The School earlier was constrained to file a Suit and the same was dismissed. Later on, the appeal in A.S.No.74 of 2007 was allowed by the District Court, Sivagangai on 30.06.2008 and as per which, the petitioner School is the owner of the building. Though the Second Appeal filed by the Government is pending, they seek the license retrospectively for the School. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. Earlier, they filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.5975 of 2009 to consider their representation. This Court, by an order dated 03.09.2009, directed the authority to consider their application and pass orders on merits. Pursuant to the direction, the learned counsel now submits before this Court that they have granted permission only for the year 2009-10 but, their application in so far as the previous year has been kept pending. In the impugned order they have stated that they will pass orders only after the disposal of the Second Appeal, which they have filed only recently. Therefore, their main contention in the writ petition is that the civil Court decree so long as not stayed, it cannot be a ground for them to postpone the issue of license. 4. As the petitioner is a School, their license should not be curtailed away by this process. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order. Unfortunately, the order is not of a rejection and only states that they will take decision after the civil Court order. It is in consonance with the earlier direction of this Court that the parties have to abide by their rights as per civil Court direction. Admittedly, the matter is now pending before before this Court in second appeal, the notice cannot be said to be totally arbitrary. But, at the same time, since the petitioner has already got a decree in their favour by virtue of the appeal decree, the authority have to consider this aspect also. Hence, the writ petition at this stage is only premature, as they have not rejected their claim in the impugned order and stated that they will have to wait till the disposal of the second appeal. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the authority to bring forth their legal rights, as enumerated in the First Appeal. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To The Tahsildar Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai District. +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.12125) W.P.(MD).No.3700 of 2011 30.03.2011 MPK NSV/20.4.11/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/