T.Chandran v. The State Of Tamilnadu
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.12.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN and WMP.25600 of 2024 T.Chandran ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Additional Secretary (Technical), Housing and Urban Development, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner, Chennai Corporation Building, Rippon Building, No.1131, E.V.R.Periyar Road, Chennai 600 003.
3. The Executive Officer, Corporation of Chennai, Zonal Office -3, No.1, Thattankulam Street, Bazar Road, Madhavaram, Chennai 600 060
...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to either lock and seal or to demolish the construction put up at No.45, Punitha Anthoniyar Kovil Main Street, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066 and further direct them to follow the due process of granting planning permission to the 1/5
construction put at Plot No.45, Punitha Anthoniyar Kovil Main Street, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066 based on his representation dated 24.06.2024 . For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vijay Anand For Respondents : Mr.S.John J Raja Singh for R1 Mr.G.T.Subramanian Standing counsel for R2 and R3
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) Admittedly, the petitioner has put up construction without obtaining a sanctioned plan. When a lock and seal notice was issued, the petitioner has approached the Government under Section 80 (A) of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971[hereinafter referred to as the "Act"] and has obtained time to bring the building in terms of the approved plan, by misrepresenting facts and making it appear that as if he has got sanctioned plan. When the proposed party filed a Writ petition before this Court in WP No.14723 of 2023 challenging the order of the Secretary passed under Section 80(A) of the Act granting time to the petitioner to bring the building in conformity with the sanctioned plan. The fact that the petitioner did not have the approved plan was not disclosed by the petitioner, who was the 5th respondent in the writ petition as well as the 2/5
Executive Engineer, Chennai Corporation, Zone III, who figured as the 4th respondent in the said writ petition.
2.
This Court therefore passed an order on the premise that the petitioner had some kind of an approved plan. Now it turns out that the petitioner's application for planning permission has been rejected by the Corporation. Hence, we find that the mandamus sought for cannot be issued. This writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.M., J.) (C.K., J.) 02.12.2024 rka Index : Yes Internet : No : Yes Non-speaking order 3/5
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Additional Secretary (Technical), Housing and Urban Development, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner, Chennai Corporation Building, Rippon Building, No.1131, E.V.R.Periyar Road, Chennai 600 003.
3. The Executive Officer, Corporation of Chennai, Zonal Office -3, No.1, Thattankulam Street, Bazar Road, Madhavaram, Chennai 600 060 4/5
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and C.KUMARAPPAN , J.
rka 02.12.2024 5/5