P.Maharaja v. The Member Secretary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.07.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN W.P.No.22225 of 2016
1. P.Maharaja
2. S.Pathirapandy ..
Petitioners -vs1. The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore, Chennai 600 008
2. The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Rippon Buildings Chennai 600 003
3. Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central) Corporation of Chennai No.368, 2nd Cross Street Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar Chennai 600 030
4. The City Engineer Corporation of Chennai Rippon Buildings Chennai 600 003
5. The Executive Engineer Zone X Corporation of Chennai No.64, Kalaivanar Salai Chennai 600 024
6. The Tahsildar Mambalam-Guindy Taluk Chennai 600 015
7. M.Sahaik Dawood
8. M.Usman Ali ..
Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the third respondent letter dated 19.08.2015 under Reference No.Zo.X.C.No.A8/2473/ 2013 and quash the same as illegal and invalid and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith demolish the illegal construction put up by the respondents 7 and 8 in the premises No.1, Ranganathan Street, facing Usman Road described as Door No.95, Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.
For Petitioners::
Mr.Ashok Menon For Respondents::
Mr.C.Johnson for R1 Mr.A.Nagarajan for R2 to R5 Mr.B.Anandan Government Advocate for R6 Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Senior Counsel for Mrs.AL.Ganthimathi for R7 & R8
ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. It appears that the petitioners are tenants, who sought to initiate action against the respondents 7 & 8 alleging violation of development control regulations and forged documentation etc. However, the stand of the respondents 7 & 8 is that the decision on re-induction is only a subsequent event, if at all any order is to be passed by the Rent Control Court and not otherwise. Even such a provision is not available under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act of 1960 amended later. But the stand of the respondents/authorities is that after proper verification, a decision is taken to permit.
3. It appears that the petitioners, being tenants and made to vacate from the premises, want to take a grudge against the respondents 7 & 8, on the ground of putting up the illegal construction and demolition etc. Such being the case, this petition is an abuse of process coming in the way of law and order or waging war in putting up the construction. Hence the
writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.18961 to 18963 of 2016 are also dismissed. No costs.
-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar ss To
1. The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore, Chennai 600 008
2. The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Rippon Buildings Chennai 600 003
3. The Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central) Corporation of Chennai No.368, 2nd Cross Street Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar Chennai 600 030
4. The City Engineer Corporation of Chennai Rippon Buildings Chennai 600 003
5. The Executive Engineer Zone X Corporation of Chennai No.64, Kalaivanar Salai Chennai 600 024
6. The Tahsildar Mambalam-Guindy Taluk Chennai 600 015 +1 cc to Mr.AL.Gandhimathi Advocate sr.38857 +1 cc to Mr.C.Johnson Advocate sr.38721 +1 cc to Mr.A.Nagarajan Advocate sr.38652 +2 ccs to M/s.Ashok Menon Advocate sr.39020 W.P.No.22225 of 2016 aa27/07/2016