Chennaram Seni, v. The Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.06.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.P.No.22810 of 2016 & WMP.No.19494 of 2016 Chennaram Seni ... Petitioner v.
The Commissioner, Pammal Municipality, Pammal, Chennai-600 075.
... Respondent Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent herein to issue and release the building permit at the earliest for the construction of residential group dewelling apartments in Plot No.8 comprised in Survey No.168/3 part, 4 part, 169/1, 2A, 2B, 2CPart, 170/1, 2A, 2B, 172/50 part, 21 Part, 28 part, 29, 42, 43 & 44 part, 48 & 49 part, 50 51 & 52 part of pammal Village, within the Pammal Municipal Limit in consequence of the planning permit already approved and renewed by Chennai Metropolitan Development dated 31.12.2014 in File No.B1/ 1385/2013 on the basis of petitioners application and representation dated 05.05.2016 and 08.06.2016. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Mohan For Respondent : Mr.P.Srinivas
O R D E R
In the case on hand, though the petitioner has got Planning Permit approved by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, (CMDA), pursuant to which, a Building Permit was granted initially. Thereafter, the building permit got expired. The petitioner made another application seeking building permit. As the same was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. As submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner this Court, on considering the similar issue in W.P. No.3946 of 2017 dated 17.04.2017, has passed the following order.
"10.Admittedly in the case on hand, the petitioner has applied within the time. Section 204 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, has to be looked at from his own context. It merely states that a fresh application has to be made before the work is continued. Therefore, the object of this provision is to make sure that there is no construction without permission. There is a difference between a fresh application and a new application. To put it differently, an application seeking renewal is nothing but a fresh application and not a new one. Provisions of a statue have to be read in consonance with each other to avoid any unnecessary conflict. Therefore, Section 204 has to be read with 321 (9a) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920.
11.The matter can be looked at from the different perspective as well. The permission is sought for the same project. The petitioner has not changed the permission sought for and obtained earlier. Merely because, the project could not be completed, the respondent no.3 cannot seek the payment once again. A mere availability of the alternative remedy per se cannot be a ground. This issue sought for lies in a very narrow campus. It is one dealing with the payment of charges.
12.In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the order impugned cannot be sustained in the eye of Law and it is hereby set aside. In so far as the payment of Rs.79,70,000/-(Rupees seventy nine lakh seventy thousand only) is concerned. For all practical purposes, the application made by the petitioner has to be taken as duly complied with payment of requisite fee has done earlier. It is brought to the knowledge of this Court that the petitioner has paid a scrutiny fee for the grant of permission by paying a requisite amount more than Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). The learned counsel also submits that any miscellaneous fees would also be paid. The statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent that two other payments such as, Building Construction Welfare Fund and Vacant Site Tax having been paid earlier are
given credit to while considering the present application is also recorded. The third respondent shall consider the granting of necessary permit within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13.Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."
3. The ratio laid down therein would govern the case as well. In such view of the matter, a direction is issued to the respondent to pass orders on the application of the petitioner dated 05.05.2016 followed by reminder dated 08.06.2016, seeking building permit in the light of the aforesaid decision, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
4. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS III ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar raa To The Commissioner, Pammal Municipality, Pammal, Chennai-600 075.
+1cc to Mr.R.Mohan,Advocate sr.43908 W.P.No.22810 of 2016 gjII(co) ss(12/7/2017)