Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 1 docs
Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Madras High Court
K.B..Edison vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 21 February, 2017
        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :  21.02.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.HULUVADI G.RAMESH, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

W.P.No.4285 of 2017

K.B..Edison							.. Petitioner 

Vs

1.  The Government of Tamil Nadu                    
     Rep. by its Secretary to Government  
     Housing and Urban Development  Department  
     Fort St. George,  Chennai 9.

2.  Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority  
     Rep. by its Member-Secretary  
     No.1,  Gandhi-Irwin Road,  Egmore  
     Chennai 8

3.  Corporation of Chennai 
     Rep. by its Regional Deputy Commissioner  
     Pulla Avenue,  Shenoy Nagar,  Chennai 30.	.. Respondents 
 
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in letter No.17369/UD-VI(I)/2016-1, dated 31.01.2017 in rejecting the petitioner's review petition filed under Town and Country Planning Act as against locking and sealing of the respondents 2 and 3 for the building put up No.4,  Lake Area,  7th Cross Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 34 by quashing the same and consequently forbear the respondents from initiating any coercive action of locking and sealing of the building put up in the aforementioned property.
For Petitioner
:
Mr.R.Mohan

For Respondents
:
Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan
Spl. Government Pleader 
for 1st respondent 

Mr.Rajasrinivas
for 2nd respondent 

Mr.A.Nagarajan
for 3rd respondent 


ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Acting Chief Justice) Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent. Mr. Rajasrinivas, learned counsel takes notice for the second respondent and Mr.A.Nagarajan, learned counsel takes notice for the third respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that after obtaining planning permission from CMDA for construction of basement + stilt + ground + three floors in the year 2006, the entire construction was structurally over by early 2007. According to the petitioner, there are marginal variations in the construction from the approved plan. Complaints were lodged by the neighbours and proceedings were initiated by the department to lock and seal the premises. The petitioner alleges that he had filed two separate appeals under Section 79 and 80A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The review petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by the impugned order dated 31.1.2017. Assailing the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a direction that a policy decision should be taken by the Government to regularize the unauthorized constructions. It is contended that the appeal of the petitioner filed under Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act has not been considered by the respondent/authorities till date and without passing any order in this appeal the review petition is rejected and, therefore, the same should be set aside.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent submits that there is no scope for entertaining a review petition and in fact, there is no provision for reviewing the orders passed. It is also contended that there is no appeal filed under Section 79 of the said Act pending on the file of the first respondent.

6. It is trite that matters relating to framing and implementation of policy primarily fall in the domain of the Government. It is for the Government to frame any policy as it may deem fit and proper and there cannot be a mandamus issued in this regard.

7. Coming to the case on hand, it transpires that instead of three floors, the petitioner has put up six floors, for which he has sought for regularization and the same was rejected. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we grant two months time to the petitioner to bring the construction in conformity with the approved plan. If the petitioner fails to comply with the said direction within the stipulated time, the respondent/authorities are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.4482 and 4483 are closed.

(H.G.R., ACJ.) (R.M.D., J.) 21.02.2017 Index : Yes Internet : Yes sasi To:

1. The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Housing and Urban Development Department Fort St. George, Chennai 9.

2. The Member-Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority No.1, Gandhi-Irwin Road, Egmore Chennai 8.

3. The Regional Deputy Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 30.

HULUVADI G.RAMESH,ACJ.

AND R.MAHADEVAN,J.

(sasi) W.P.No.4285 of 2017 21.02.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in