Tagore Institute Of v. The Commissioner Of Town And
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.04.2015
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P.Nos.13472 and 13473 of 2015 and M.P. Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 Tagore Institute of Engineering and Technology represented by its Secretary Deviyakurichi Attur (Tk.) Salem District 636 112 ... Petitioner in WP No.13472 of 2015 Tagore College of Education represented by its Secretary Deviyakurichi Post Thalaivasal Attur (Tk.), Salem District 636 112 ... Petitioner in WP No.13473 of 2015 Vs.
1 The Commissioner of Town and Country Planning O/o. The Directorate of Town and Country Planning 807 Anna Salai Chennai-2 2 The Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning Salem Region No.6 Sannathi street Subramania Nagar Sooramanglam, Salem 636 005 ... RR 1 & 2 in both the WPs Manivilundhan Village Panchayat represented by its President Manivilundhan, Attur Taluk Salem District 636 112 ... R3 in WP No.13472/2015
3 Deviyakurichi Village Panchayat rep. by its President Deviyakurichi, Attur Taluk Salem District - 636 112 ... R3 in WP No.13473/2015 Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondents relating to the order of the 1st respondent in D.O.Roc. No.9263/2012-UAC dated 21.7.2014 and the order of the 2nd respondent in Roc. No.1537/2014 SR-3 dated 13.2.2015 and quash the same.
For petitioner in both the WPs : Mr. Kandhan Doraisami For RR 1 & 2 in : Mr. N. Sakthivel both the WPs Government Advocate For R3 in : Mr. P.Sanjay Gandhi both the WPs COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.) Mr. N. Sakthivel, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. P. Sanjay Gandhi, learned counsel, accepts notice for the third respondent. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal, at the admission stage itself. These writ petitions are filed challenging the order of the first respondent in D.O. Roc No.9263/2012-UAC dated 21.07.2014 and the orders of the second respondent in Roc No.1537/2014 SR-3 dated 13.02.
2015, stating that in spite of opportunity having been given, the petitioner institutions have not submitted their approved plan and therefore, the buildings in question will be locked and sealed. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner institutions are having approved plan granted by the competent authority/local body and based on the approved plan only, the buildings were constructed prior to 2010. The learned counsel relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in The District Collector and Others vs.
order of a learned Single Judge in Apesh Construction Ltd.2 vs. The Corporation of Madurai and an unreported judgment dated 15.06.2012 passed in W.P. No.11031 of 2011, in support of his contentions. The order dated 21.07.2014 passed by the first respondent in D.O.Roc. No.9263/2012-UAC and the notices dated 13.02.2015 issued by the second respondent are assailed in these writ petitions. Since the petitioners/educational institutions are contending that they have obtained the approval plan from the competent local authority on 24.09.2007 and 02.10.2003 respectively and the buildings were constructed as per the approved plan, it is open to the petitioners/educational institutions to submit their objections/representations qua the impugned notices dated 13.02.2015.
It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have already submitted their representations dated 24.04.2015. As referred to above, the impugned notices dated 13.02.2015 were issued based on the communication issued by the first respondent. Hence, the second respondent is directed to get a clarification from the first respondent, who is bound to clarify, to take further action in the matter, as the action initiated is based on D.O.Roc.No.9263/2012-UAC dated 21.07.2014 issued by the first respondent. After receiving the said clarification, the second respondent is directed to pass a speaking order, on consideration of the petitioners' representations dated 24.04.2015, in accordance with law, within a period of one week.
Needless to state that each and every submission averred by the petitioners in their representations is to be adverted to and a reasoned order is required to be passed. Till fresh orders are passed by the second respondent as stated supra, status quo as obtained today, in respect of the buildings of the petitioners/educational institutions, shall be maintained by both the parties.
These writ petitions are disposed of with the above direction and observation. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar 2013 (2) CTC 180
cad To 1 The Commissioner of Town and Country Planning O/o.The Directorate of Town and Country Planning 807 Anna Salai, Chennai-2 2 The Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning Salem Region No.6 Sannathi street Subramania Nagar Sooramanglam, Salem 636 005 The President Manivilundhan Village Panchayat Manivilundhan, Attur Taluk Salem District 636 112 The President Deviyakurichi Village Panchayat Deviyakurichi, Attur Taluk Salem District - 636 112 +2cc's to M/s.Muthumani Doraisamy, Advocate, S.R.No.24646 & 24065 +1cc to M/s.P.Sanjai Gandhi, Advocate, S.R.No.24577 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.24735 W.P. Nos.13472 and 13473 of 2015 CNR(CO) CA(08/05/2015)