Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 6 docs - [View All]
R & M Trust vs Koramangala Resi. Vigilance ... on 19 January, 2005
State Of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors on 18 January, 2010
People'S Union For Democratic ... vs Union Of India & Others on 18 September, 1982
P.Pugalenthi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 15 September, 2009
Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal on 18 November, 2003

User Queries
View the actual judgment from court
Madras High Court
Ramasamy @ Traffic Ramasamy vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 5 March, 2012
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 05..03..2012

CORAM

THE HONBLE Mr.M.Y.EQBAL, CHIEF JUSTICE
and 
THE HONBLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM 

W.P.No.4923 of 2012 
----------- 

Ramasamy @ Traffic Ramasamy,
Founder Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Social Workers Organisation,
No.223A, N.S.C.Bose Road,
Chennai  600 001. 							..Petitioner.

Vs. 
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
    rep. by its Secretary,
    Municipal Administration,
    St.George Fort,
    Chennai  600 009. 

2. The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
    rep. by its Member Secretary,
    Thalamuthu-Natarajan Building,
    No.1, Gandhi-Irwin Road,
    Egmore, Chennai  600 008. 

3. The Commissioner,
    Corporation of Chennai,
    Ripon Buildings,
    Chennai  600 003. 

4. Landmark Constructions, 
    rep. by its Managing Director,
    No.153/156, Peters Road,
    Chennai  600 006. 							..Respondents. 


PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the 4th respondent from putting up construction of multi-storied building at No.153/156, Peters Road, Chennai  600 006 pursuant to the illegal planning permission accorded by the 2nd respondent under file No.C3/12313/2010. 
------------ 
			For Petitioner 	:: Mr.P.Karl Marx
			For Respondent  1 	:: Mr.S.Venkatesh, Govt. Pleader 
			For Respondent  2 	:: Mr.C.Johnson
			For Respondent  3	:: Mr.S.Krishnaa
			For Respondent  4 	:: No appearance 
------------- 
O R D E R

The Honble Chief Justice & T.S.Sivagnanam, J.

-------------------------------------

This pro bono publico has been filed by the petitioner to restrain the 4th respondent from putting up unauthorised construction of multi-storied building at No.153/156, Peters Road, Chenani  600 006 pursuant to the illegal planning permission accorded by the 2nd respondent.

2. It is stated that the 4th respondent is putting up a multi-storied residential apartment consisting of 17 floors in the above stated address, after obtaining planning permission from the 2nd respondent  CMDA. It is stated that the planning permission was granted for the construction of residential apartment covering 22.68% of the total plot extent, which comes to 50,710 sq.ft. The 4th respondent was accorded permission to avail from and out of the total extent of 50,710 sq.ft. 17 residential floors in the backdrop of 3.38 FSI. As per the Development Control Rules the FSI permissible for a multi-storied building is 1.5 or 1.75 or 2.50, if the maximum coverage is upto 30%. If the maximum coverage is between 30% and 40%, the FSI shall be at 2.25, and if the maximum coverage is above 40% and below 50%, then the permissible FSI shall be at 2. Even for constructions of I.T.Parks the FSI shall be at 3. But, in the instant case, for the 4th respondents residential construction 3.38 FSI is accorded by the 2nd respondent, which is ex-facie illegal. This will ultimately result in floor violations, which is contrary to law. Such kind of FSI violations and floor violations, will ultimately result in unlawful constructions, and tend to commit unauthorised encroachments not only in the space area but also in the ground level plinth area, which are hazardous to the occupants. It is stated that the petitioner came to know that the 2nd respondent accorded exemption of O.S.R. to the 4th respondents construction by collecting compounding charges, which is bad in the eye of law. Such exemption from O.S.R. or sparing of O.S.R. by collecting compounding charges can be justified for areas beneath one lakh square feet and that too only for constructions falling in line with the parameters of constructions with reference to new development control rules but not to an anomalous construction such as the present one. Therefore, the petitioner has moved the present writ petition to restrain the 4th respondent from continuing its unauthorised construction at the above stated site.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.

4. Time and again, the Supreme Court, as also this Court, has observed that public interest litigation is only intended to promote and vindicate public interest which demands that violations of constitutional or legal rights of large numbers of people who are poor, ignorant or in a socially or economically disadvantaged position should not go unnoticed and unredressed. It has also been held that public interest litigation is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens as this jurisdiction is meant for the purpose of coming to the rescue of the downtrodden and not for the purpose of serving private ends. The Supreme Court has held that while exercising the jurisdiction, the court must see that very large section of the society, because of extreme poverty, ignorance, discrimination and illiteracy, had been denied justice for time immemorial and in fact, they have no access to justice  vide Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of West Bengal [A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 280], R & M Trust vs. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group [(2005) 3 SCC 91], State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal, [(2010) 3 S.C.C. 402], Peoples Union for Democratic Rights and others vs. Union of India, [(1982) 3 S.C.C. 235] and Pugalenthi vs. State of Tamil Nadu [W.P. No.4233 of 2012 dated 2.3.2012].

5. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, we are of the firm opinion that this writ petition cannot be entertained as a public interest litigation as no real public interest is shown to have been affected in this case. Therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty is approach the authorities concerned by filing a representation as to the illegality which is being committed by the fourth respondent and if such representation is filed, the respondents concerned shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

(M.Y.E., C.J.) (T.S.S., J.) March 5, 2012 sm/ab To

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration, St.George Fort, Chennai  600 009.

2. The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, rep. by its Member Secretary, Thalamuthu-Natarajan Building, No.1, Gandhi-Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai  600 008.

3. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Chennai  600 003.

4. Landmark Constructions, rep. by its Managing Director, No.153/156, Peters Road, Chennai  600 006.

The Honble the Chief Justice and T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

Pre-delivery Order in W.P. No.4923 of 2012 Delivered on

05..03..2012