N. Venkatesh, v. The Director Of Town And
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.8207 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) Nos.2 and 3 of 2013 N.Venkatesh ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Director of Town and Country Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai.
2. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.
3. The Member Secretary, Local Planning Authority, 11-A, Ramanpillai Street, P.D.Pillai Marriage Hall, Ramavarmapuram, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
4. The Nagercoil Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 3rd respondent bearing Na.Ka.No.916/2011 NLPA dated 08.02.2013 and the consequential proclamation dated 06.05.2013 sealing the petitioner's premises and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to remove the seal at Hotel Chitra, Court Road, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan, Spl. G.P. For R1 to 3 Mr.P.Athimoolapandian for R4
O R D E R
*********** [Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.] The petitioner questions the impugned proceedings issued by the Local Planning Authority, Nagercoil.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the building in question was put up only after obtaining approval from the Nagercoil Municipality.
3.The third respondent has filed a typed set of papers, in which the deviations in respect of the building in question has been set out in a tabulated format. The same is as under: Approval Details Violation Details Approval Present Sl.No Description of rule
Present
condition at site Viola tion District Municipal Building Rules, 1972 1.
11(4) 1/4th set back Not provided 100% Basement + Ground + 1st floor Basemen t + Ground + floors 2.
12-Parking provision Not provided 100% 3.
14(1) 1/8th ventilation Not provided 100% 4.
15(2)(g) stair case ventilation Not provided 100% 5.
14(3) set back provision 6.
Location of Site Multi-storied and Public Building Rules, 1973 1.
4(a) to be declared as MSB since it is beyond 4 storeys Not declared 100% 2.
4(b) Minimum width of plot to be 24.50 Mtr.
3.
9-F S.I. - 100 Not provided 100% 4.
9 Plot Coverage 50% Not provided 100% 5.
11(1)(b) Front set back all around atleast 6 mtr.
Not provided 100% 6.
13-Parking facilities Not provided 100% 9.
14, 18 -Fire Safety norms to be adopted 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.The impugned communication merely calls upon the petitioner to remove the unauthorised constructions. 7.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 has not really been explained by the writ petitioner.
8.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.
9.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 person. 10.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 are also dismissed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To
1. The Director of Town and Country Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai.
2. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.
3. The Member Secretary, Local Planning Authority, 11-A, Ramanpillai Street, P.D.Pillai Marriage Hall, Ramavarmapuram, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
4. The Nagercoil Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
+1cc to Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Advocate Sr.No.54776 +1cc to The Spl. Government Pleader Sr.No.55693 ARUL VB/SV/MMS/SAR4/20.04.2018/4P/7C ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD)No.8207 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) Nos.2 and 3 of 2013 13.03.2018