Jayanthi Sundar v. Government Of Tamilnadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.08.2015
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P. No. 25920 of 2015 Jayanthi Sundar .... Petitioner vs.
1. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai.9.
2. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, rep. By its Member Secretary, No.1 Gandhi Irwyn Road, Egmore, Chennai.8.
Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus Directing the 2nd respondent to forbear them from in anyway interfering with the petitioner's building at Door No.5, Old Door No.42, North Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17 Particularly by way of locking and sealing and demolition pending final determination of the petitioner's Appeal dated 28.07.2015 under Sectioon 80(A) & 80(A)(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, by the 1st Respondent.
For petitioner : Mr. D.S.Rajasekaran For respondents : Mr. P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram Spl. Govt. Pleader - R1 Mr. C. Johnson - R2
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.) Mr. P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice for the first respondent and Mr. C. Johnson, learned counsel accepts notice for the second respondent. With the
consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal, at the admission stage itself. From a perusal of the records, it transpires that the second respondent has issued locking, sealing and demolition notice dated 21.07.2015 against the petitioner under Sections 56 and 57 read with Section 85 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (for short "the Act"). Thereagainst, the petitioner has already filed an appeal under Section 80-A of the Act before the first respondent-Government on 28.07.2015, challenging the aforesaid notice dated 21.07.2015, which is pending consideration. It is further seen that along with the said appeal, the petitioner has also preferred an application for interim stay, in view of the provisions of Section 80-A(3) of the Act.
It was observed by this Court in many a case that if there is an application for interim relief, the authorities are expected to consider the application for interim relief, within a period of two weeks. However, in the case on hand, despite lapse of three weeks from the date of filing of the application for interim relief, no order has been passed in the said petition. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, we are of the considered view that if an appeal is filed along with the application for interim relief, the officers are well advised to consider the application for interim relief at the earliest, preferably, within a period of two weeks, to avoid further complications.
Accordingly, we direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's application for interim relief as early as possible, preferably, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and also to consider the petitioner's appeal within the statutory period prescribed under the provisions of law, on its own merits and in accordance with law. It is made clear that for a period of two weeks from today, i.e., 20th August, 2015, status quo as obtained today, in respect of the property in question, shall be maintained by both the parties.
The writ petition stands disposed of, with the above direction and observation. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS II ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar ra
To
1. The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai.9.
2. Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.1 Gandhi Irwyn Road, Egmore, Chennai.8.
+1 cc to The Government Pleader, sr.44477 +1 cc to Mr.C.Johnson, Advocate, sr.44282 +1 cc to Mr.D.S.Rajasekaran, Advocate, sr.44205. W.P. No.25920 of 2015 pa(co) kra(1/9)