WMP(MD)No.13733 of 2024 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.04.2025 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR WMP(MD)No.13733 of 2024 in REV.APLW(MD)SR.No.46899 of 2024 and REV.APLW(MD)SR.No.46899 of 2024 S.B.Rajkumar ... Petitioner in both cases vs. 1. B.Kalyani 2. The District Collector, Madurai District. 3. The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai. 4. The City Town Planning Officer, Madurai Corporation, Madurai. ... Respondents in both cases Prayer: The Writ Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 135 days in filing the above Review Application. Prayer: The Review Application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 and under Section 114 CPC to review the order passed by this 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WMP(MD)No.13733 of 2024 Court in W.P.(MD)No.1101 of 2024, dated 22.01.2024. For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Laxman For R2 : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader ORDER J.NISHA BANU, J. AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J. The 1st respondent has filed the writ petition in W.P(MD)No. 1101 of 2024, seeking a Mandamus directing the respondents 3 and 4 herein to demolish the unauthorised construction put by the review applicant herein. The Division Bench by order dated 22.01.2024, has disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondents 3 and 4 herein to pass orders on the 1st respondent's representation dated 09.12.2023 within a period of twelve weeks. Seeking to review of the said order, the 4th respondent in the writ petition has filed this review application with the delay of 135 days. 2. In support of the delay, the review applicant has stated that without putting him notice, the writ petition was disposed of and he 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WMP(MD)No.13733 of 2024 came to know the said order only in the month of June 2025 and hence, the above delay has occurred. 3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent would state that the Writ Court without going into the merits of the case, has only directed to pass orders on the representation of the 1st respondent and therefore, there is no error apparent to review the said order. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the review application. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Though the review applicant has raised various grounds to review the order passed in the writ petition, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to pass orders on the 1st respondent's representation after providing opportunity to the 1st respondent and the review applicant herein. Thus, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the order sought to be reviewed. 6. Accordingly, WMP(MD)No.13733 of 2024 is dismissed. 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WMP(MD)No.13733 of 2024 Consequently, REV.APLW(MD)SR.No.46899 of 2024 is rejected. [J.N.B, J.] [R.V, J.] 03.04.2025 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No cmr/bala To 1. The District Collector, Madurai District. 2. The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai. 3. The City Town Planning Officer, Madurai Corporation, Madurai. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WMP(MD)No.13733 of 2024 J.NISHA BANU, J. AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J. cmr/bala ORDER MADE IN WMP(MD)No.13733 of 2024 in REV.APLW(MD)SR.No.46899 of 2024 and REV.APLW(MD)SR.No.46899 of 2024 DATED : 03.04.2025 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis