Sree Gokulam Chit And Finance v. The Member Secretary,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 29.08.2017 Pronounced on : 13.03.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.8199 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2013 Shree Gokulam Chit and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by R.Sudhakaran ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Member Secretary, Local Planning Authority, 11-A, Ramanpillai Street, P.D.Pillai Marriage Hall, Ramavarmapuram, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

2. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the seal and lock of Door No.299-R situated at Ramasubramaniam Shopping Complex, Veeppamoodu Junction, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District based on the petitioner's representation dated 06.05.2013.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan, Spl. G.P.

O R D E R

*********** [Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.] The petitioner seeks a direction to direct the respondents to remove the seal and lock of Door No.299-R situated at Ramasubramaniam Shopping Complex, Veeppamoodu Junction, Nagercoil,

Kanyakumari District based on the petitioner's representation dated 06.05.2013.

2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner after getting plan approval from the municipal authorities put up a commercial complex in Door No.299-R situated at Ramasubramaniam Shopping Complex, Veeppamoodu Junction, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. Since some deviations were noted, the first respondent, the local planning authority locked and sealed the premised without any prior notice on 06.05.2013. Instead of challenging the same, on the same day, the petitioner sent representation to the authorities seeking to remove the lock and seal of the premises. Since the same has not been considered so far, the petitioner has filed this present writ petition for disposing of his representation dated 06.05.2013.

3.The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which the deviations in respect of the building in question have been set out in a tabulated format. The same is as under: Sl.

Description of rule

Present

condition at site Violatio n No.

District Municipal Building Rules, 1972 1.

11(4) one fourth open space Not provided 100% 2.

12-Parking space Not provided 100% 3.

14(1) 1/8 ventilation Not provided 100% 5.

15(2)(g) staircase ventilation 1.50 sq.m.

Not provided 100% Multi-storied and Public Building Rules, 1973 1.

4(a) declared as MSB Not provided 100% 2.

4(b) Minimum width of site Not provided 100% Minimum area of plot 4 grounds Not provided 100% 3.

9-F S.I. - 100 Not provided 100% Plot Coverage 50% Not provided 100% 4.

11(1)(b) open space around 5 m Not provided 100% 5.

12(2) Emergency Exit Not Provided 100% 6.

13-Parking facilities for every 200 sq.m. - 20 sq.m.

for shops and for 6 beds-20 sqm. For lodging Not provided 100% 7.

14 Fire NOC Not Provided 100%

4.The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder controverting the aforesaid allegations made by the authority with respect to the deviations committed by the petitioner.

5.We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6.Though in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that the building was constructed after taking permission from the local planning authority, the deviations highlighted in the counter affidavit have not really been explained by the writ petitioner.

7.In any event, there is a statutory remedy available to the petitioner under Section 80(A) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The petitioner without resorting to the specific remedy available under the Act, has rushed to this Court and obtained an interim order.

8.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dipak Kumar Mukherjee Vs. Kolkatta Municipal Corporation (2013 (5) SCC 336) observed that illegal and unauthorised construction of buildings and other structures not only violate the Municipal Laws and the concept of planned development of the particular area but also affect various fundamental and constitutional rights of other persons. 9.The building in question is used by the public. It is a commercial building. Since the public are using the building, it must have a structurally sound building. There is nothing on record to see that the building was constructed in adherence to the safety standards. In any case, the local authority was correct in taking enforcement action. We are therefore of the view that there is no ground made out in this writ petition. We therefore dismiss the writ petition. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions is also dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(rti) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Member Secretary, Local Planning Authority, 11-A, Ramanpillai Street, P.D.Pillai Marriage Hall, Ramavarmapuram, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

2. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

+ 1 cc TO Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar , Advocate in SR No. 55174 + 1 cc TO The Special Government Pleader in SR No. 55692 Arul AE/KKR/SAR3/19.04.2018/4P/5C ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD)No.8199 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2013 13.03.2018