Madras High CourtWP/18493/2021dismissed

S.Jeeva v. The Under Secretary

2021-09-20Honourable Mr Justice V.Sivagnanam,Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.09.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.18493 of 2021 S.Jeeva

...Petitioner

-vs1. The Under Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, St.George Fort,Chennai-600 009

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

3. The District Collector, Chennai.

4. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai-600 003.

5. The Zonal Officer, Zone X, Corporation of Chennai, Kodambakkam, Chennai- 600 024.

6. The Executive Engineer, Corporation Division Office, Division 134, Chennai-600 024.

7. KCEE HOMES APOORVAM, Rep by builder Chandrasekhar.

No.1/2, Anna Main Road, Jayabharatham Street, Rajaram Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai - 24.

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th and 5th respondents to investigate into petitioner representation dated 01.07.2021, and to fix a time frame within said investigations may be completed by considering the representation.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.S.Prabhu For R1& R3 : Mrs.Akila Rajendran Government Advocate For R2 : Mr.P.S.Ganesh Standing counsel For R4 to R6 : Mr.K.Raja Shrinivas Standing Counsel For R7 : Mr.K.R.Ramesh kumar

ORDER

(The Order of the Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents 4 and 5 to investigate into petitioner's representation dated 01.07.2021.

2.Mr.V.Logeswaran, learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the 7th respondent without any planning permission is putting up construction and hence the petitioner made a representation and issued notice to the respondents, but no action has been taken.

3.Mr.K.Raja Shrinivas, learned standing counsel for the respondents 4 to 6 would state that based on the representation of the petitioner, they issued notice to the 7th respondent for production of the planning permission, which was also produced by 7th respondent. He would further state that the Planning permission was issued by Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and if there is any violation, the 2nd respondent has taken action against the respondents 4 to 6.

4. Mr.R.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the 7th respondent would state that planning permission was issued on 31.10.2019, which was valid till 12.12.2021. Before expiry of the period, 7th respondent has completed the construction and a completion certificate was issued by the 2nd respondent/Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority on 12.04.2021.

5.In the light of the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents, we find no merits in the writ petition. 6.Accordingly, the Writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vsn To

1. The Under Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, St.George Fort, Chennai-600 009