K.Jeyan Kingsly, v. The District Collector
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.8349 of 2013 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013 K.Jeyan Kingsly ... Petitioner vs.
1. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.
2. The Municipal Commissioner, Nagercoil Municipality, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
3. The Member Secretary, Local Planning Authority, 11-A, Ramanpillai Street, Ramavarmapuram, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned notice of the 3rd respondent in Notice No.17/2013 Na.Vu.Thi.Ku dated 01.04.2013 and the consequential impugned proceedings of 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.17/2013 Na.Vu.thi.Ku dated 02.05.2013 and quash the same and consequently forbearing the respondents from in any way sealing the hotel and lodging premises of the petitioner in Door No.339E/17B, K.P.Road, Vadasery, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Nagercoil, Kanyakumrai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, Sr.Counsel for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan, Spl G P for R1 and 3 Mr.Aathimoolapandian for R2
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 Ground + first floor Stilt + Ground + floors 1.
11(4) 1/4th set back Not provided 100% 15(2)(g) stair case ventilation Not provided 100% 2.
12-Parking provision Not provided 100% 14(1) 1/8 ventilation Not provided 100% 3.
15(1) stair case provision Not provided 100% 4.
14(3) set back provision Not provided 100% 5.
Location of Site Not provided 100% Special Building Rules 1.
FSI 1.75 Not declared 100% 2.
PC 50% Not provided 100% 3.
Open space around 3m Not provided 100% 4.
Front set back Not provided 100%
5.
around atleast 3 mtr.
Not provided 100% 6.
Parking Not provided 100% 7.
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.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 petition is also dismissed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.
2. The Municipal Commissioner, Nagercoil Municipality, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
3. The Member Secretary, Local Planning Authority, 11-A, Ramanpillai Street, Ramavarmapuram, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
+ 1 cc TO M/S.Ajmal Associates , Advocate in SR No. 55051 + 1 cc TO The Special Government Pleader in SR No. 55706 AE/JC/SAR3/19.04.2018/4P/6C Order made in W.P(MD)No.8349 of 2013 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013 13.03.2018