Madras High Court
G.Anbuchezheian vs The Secretary To Government on 6 August, 2018
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: S.Ramathilagam, M.Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDUCATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 06.08.2018
Coram:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUTICE M.VENUGOPAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.RAMATHILAGAM
W.P.No.1414 of 2018
G.Anbuchezheian ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
The Housing and Urban Development
Department,
Namaskkal Kavinzar Maligai,
3rd Floor, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009
2.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development
Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Maligai,
No.1, Gandhi-Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008
3.The Commissioner,
Tambvaram Municipality,
28, Muthuranga Mudali Street,
Tambaram West, Chennai-600 045
4.The Town Planning Officer,
Tambaram Municipality,
28, Muthuranga Mudali Street,
Tambaram West, Chennai-600 045
5.Mr.Daniel Deva Dass,
President, South East India Union
of SDA.
6.Mr.Mohan, Treasurer,
South East India Union of SDA
7.Mr.Edwin Samuel, Principal,
Seventh Day Adventist Matriculation School,
No.74/249, GST Road,
Tambaram, Chennai-600 045 ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to consider the Petitioner's Representation dated 02.08.2017 to demolish the unauthorized construction put up by the 7th Respondent School, viz., 'Seventh Day Adventist Matriculation School' at No.74/249, GST Road, Tambaram, Chennai-600 045, through the 3rd Respondent herein, viz., The Commissioner, Tambaram Municipality.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ayyaswamy
For Respondents :Mr.J.Pothiraj,Spl.G.P.for R1
Mrs.P.Veena Suresh,
for R2
Mr.Ravikumar Paul for
M/s.Spar Associates for R5 to R7
Mr.P.Srinivas,
for R3 and R4
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.VENUGOPAL,J.) The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition praying for passing of an Order by this Court in directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to consider his Representation dated 02.08.2017, to demolish the unauthorised construction put up by the 7th Respondent, viz., Seventh Day Adventist Matriculation School, through the Third Respondent herein, viz., the Commissioner, Tambaram Municipality.
2.Counter of R3 and R7 is filed. No counter is filed on behalf of R1, R2, R4, R5 and R6.
3.Heard both sides.
4.According to the Petitioner he has filed the present Writ Petition under the caption 'Public Interest Litigation' because of the reason that since he is concerned with the Society in general, he sought the help of Right to Information Act and obtained information regarding the 7th Respondent/Seventh Day Adventist Matriculation School at No.74/249. GST Road, Tambaram, Chennai-600 045, which was constructed unauthorisedly and also not following any Rules and Regulations. Further, the 7th Respondent/School had constructed unauthorised building in the aforestated property. Therefore, he made a representation dated 02.08.2017 to the Respondents 1 to 6, which was acknowledged by them.
5.The Petitioner, in his Writ Affidavit, had averred that he went to the 7th Respondent/School for an admission to his friend's daughter on 17.4.2017 and came to understand the factual situation of the School. The 7th Respondent/School is running in violation of Government Order (2D) No.48, School Education Department, dated 21.07.2004 as well as the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sampath Commission's Recommendations. Further, the construction of the 7th Respondent/School building is not constructed in a good quality and it is in danger of being dilapidated. Moreover, no 'Emergency Exit' has been provided. There is no 'Ingress' and 'Egress' and there is only one way to approach the School. No parking space has been provided not only for the School, but also for other vehicles.
6.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the 3rd Respondent/Commissioner, Tambaram Municipality, issued notice on 15.05.2017 to the 7th Respondent/Seventh Day Adventist Matriculation School, under Sections 216(1) & (2), 317 of the Amended Act of Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. In this connection, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that the Planning permission for the School construction, which was applied for by the 7th Respondent/School, was rejected by the 3rd Respondent and again, an Application was made on 19.06.2017 seeking for Building Plan permission, which was rejected by the 3rd Respondent and a notice was issued by the Third Respondent, on 15.05.2017.
7.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner puts forward a plea that on 06.06.2017, the Public Information Officer as well as the Town Planning Officer gave reply to the Petitioner's Letter stating that proper notice was issued to the School authorities and suitable action would be taken. But in contrast, the School Authorities are constructing further Buildings unauthorisedly.
8.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner draws the attention of this Court that the Petitioner had projected an Application dated 10.10.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to the 4th Respondent, requesting the details regarding the unauthorised building constructed by the 7th Respondent/Seventh Day Adventist Matriculation School, and that the Petitioner received a reply dated 30.10.2017 from the Respondents 1 to 6 stating that the 7th Respondent/School construction was an 'unapproved' and 'unauthorised' one. Hence, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
9.In response, the Learned Counsel for the Third Respondent/The Commissioner, Tambaram Municipality submits that the 7th Respondent/School is running from the year 2007 and that the School building has been assessed to property tax and the said School is running under the supervision of the Education Department. Further, the Third Respondent, on 15.05.2017 had issued a show cause notice to the School as per Section 216 (1) (2) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920.
10.The Learned Counsel for the Third Respondent/Municipality points out that the 7th Respondent/School had applied for permission, to put up additional construction, on 19.06.2017, for a building with ground plus two floors of an extent of 18,213 sq.feet for the three-storied construction. The said Block has been shown as Block-B and Block-C. Indeed, Block-B contained the stage and the Laboratories above the same. Block 'C' consisted of Class Rooms.
11.It is represented that the Application of the School was returned on 10.07.2017 for the reason that the copies of the Approved Plan for the existing construction was not filed and the same was called for and till date Plans have not been submitted.
12.The Learned Counsel for R5 to R7 proceeds to point out that the School has not submitted any reply. Even after the return of the Application, the work was not stopped and that final order under section 216(3) of the Tamil Nadu Municipalities Act, 1920 was issued on 08.08.2017. Also that, a Prosecution was launched under Section 317 of the Act, on 18.08.2017, before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram and the case was numbered as STC No.65 of 2018. In the said case, Notice was served on the 7th Respondent/School and the case is still pending and that the School is contesting the case. Added further, it is submitted that the School had instituted a Civil Suit in O.S.No.100 of 2017, on the file of Learned District Munsif, Tambaram, seeking for Permanent Injunction restraining the 3rd Respondent/Tambaram Municipality from in any manner taking action pursuant to the Notice dated 15.05.2017 and the said Suit is pending.
13.The Learned Counsel for the 3rd and 4th Respondent contends that the 7th Respondent/School had stated that they had applied for Regularisation of the building as per the 2017 Scheme (under Section 113-C of the T.N.Town and Country Planning Act, 1971) and that the same is pending. Also it is submitted that the School has not obtained the building permission for the construction of the entire building and has also put up the additional construction, despite the Application for permission being returned. Only thereafter, the said School has applied for Regularisation of the building and the said Application is pending.
14.Conversely, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the 7th Respondent/School that the present Writ Petition is a motivated one, because of the fact that there is no element of 'Public Interest' involved and that the Petitioner is regularly threatening the School Management from his Mobile Number by calling the Principal of the School on his Mobile No.9566207641 as well as to the Landline No.22388304 and there was an open threat from the Petitioner that the School Management should compensate him a sum of Rs.30 Lakhs etc., In fact, the 7th Respondent/School, on 26.1.2018 had lodged a complaint before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry against the Petitioner's conduct and the same is pending.
15.The Learned Counsel for the Seventh Respondent/School informs this Court that the School Lands are owned by the India Financial Association of Seventh Day Adventists, that the School is recognised (vide Na.Ka.No.6046/Aa2/2017, dated 27.11.2017) and Classes from Kindergarden to 10th Standard are conducted in the School and nearly 1500 Students are studying. Further, the School building is constructed as per norms of the 'Development Authorities'.
16.The Learned Counsel for the 7th Respondent/School submits that in the year 2009, the School Management had submitted an Application before the Second Respondent/CMDA Authorities to regularise the existing building, which was admitted by the Second Respondent's Authorities as per Letter dated 16.6.2009, in Reference No.C4/8513/09. But the Second Respondent/CMDA had directed the School Management to remit Scrutiny Fees within seven days and the payment was made on 25.06.2009. In fact, the Second Respondent/CMDA authorities have visited the School and took note of the superstructure and during the pendency of Regularisation of building Application, the Third Respondent/Municipality had issued a notice dated 15.05.2017, under Sections 216(1) & (2) and 317 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 in Reference No.16/2007/F1 to the 7th Respondent/School.
17.The Learned Counsel for the 7th Respondent emphatically projects an argument that on 18.09.2017, the Local Body Authorities assessed the Regularisation charges for approval of School Building to a tune of Rs.7,17,760/- and that on 08.07.2018, the School Management had remitted the aforestated amount to the Second Respondent/CMDA through online towards Regularisation charges of unapproved building. However, the Regularisation orders are yet to be passed by the CMDA Authorities.
18.The Learned Counsel for the 7th Respondent/School contends that the School Management has taken all safety measures for the students/School children and had obtained a Certificate in this regard from the Fire Service Department and Sanitary Department. Also that in respect of safety measures, 14 Fire Extinguishers are installed in the School, apart from sand filled buckets in the School premises. The School has an 'Emergency Exit' in case of any 'Emergency'. Even periodical repires and renovation works are undertaken in the School building and that the School building is in good condition. Only for the purpose of the present case, the Petitioner had come out with a plea that the School building has not been constructed with good quality materials etc.
19.The Learned Counsel for the 7th Respondent/School takes a plea that the Regularisation of new building is concerned, the 3rd Respondent/Municipality had returned the Plan stating that no particulars of Regularisation orders obtained was enclosed and that the Application was only returned on the ground that details of approval for the other buildings in the site had not been furnished. In fact, the 7th Respondent/School admits the receipt of notice dated 15.05.2017, in respect of the additional construction. In reality, the 7th Respondent/School is taking steps to resubmit the Application for approval in respect of the Additional construction along with the particulars of other buildings, as required by the authorities.
20.Lastly it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the 7th Respondent/School that although notice was issued under Section 216 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, necessary steps are being taken to Regularise the same.
21.The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7 cites the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court between Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra and Others [reported in 2005 (1) SCC 590] whereby and whereunder it is observed as follows:-
This case is a sad reflection on members of the legal profession and is almost a black spot on the noble profession. The petitioner who belongs to this profession filed a petition styled as "Public Interest Litigation" before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed it holding that there was no public interest involved and in fact the petitioner had resorted to black mailing respondent nos. 6 and 7 and was caught red handed accepting "black mailing" money. The High Court also noticed that the allegations of unauthorized constructions made in the petition were also not true.
2.Cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) which was levied, was directed to be paid to the affected respondent nos. 6 and 7 before the High Court.
3.It is, in fact, a black day for the black robed professionals, if the allegation, as found by the High Court to be true and which presently appear to be the subject matter of further proceedings in a criminal case, are true. This will leave the members of the legal profession black faced for the black deed of the petitioner who may be as the High Court found a black sheep in the profession. Though the petition filed by the petitioner carried the attractive brand name of "Public Interest Litigation", the least that can be said is that it smacks of every thing what the Public Interest Litigation should not be.
4.When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, said petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding public interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". The High Court has found that the case at hand belongs to the last category. If not properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant borne out of wishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in The Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992 (4) SCC 305) and Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (1994 Supp (2) SCC 116). A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. (See Ramjas Foundation vs. Union of India, (AIR 1993 SC 852) and K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand, (1994 (6) SCC 620).
22.As per Section 199 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, the construction or reconstruction of a building should not be begun unless and until the 'Executive Authority' has granted permission for the execution of the work. Furthermore, Section 201 of the Act, 1920, enjoins that within 30 days after the receipt of an Application for permission to construct or reconstruct a building, an Executive Authority should either grant the same or refuse it on one or more grounds specified in Section 203 of the Act. If an Application had not made in written request at all to the Concerned Authority and that opted to wait for a period of 60 days, then, certainly, he will be guilty of an offence under Section 317 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. In fact, Section 338 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, speaks of 'Consequences of Failure to Obtain Licences, etc., or of Breach of the same'. Further, in the decision in Chairman Municipality Council, Mangalopre vs. Vasudeva Kamath, reported in AIR 1931 Mad at p.228, it is held that Section 338 of the Act, 1920 applies only in respect of cases where no penalty has been specifically provided for.
23.It is to be remembered that Section 216 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 provides for a provisional order requiring the owner to demolish the work done followed by a final order confirming the provisional order. Section 339 of the Act refers to the steps to be taken when the owner does not comply with the notice. If the owner neglects to follow the order under Section 216(3) of the Act, there is no further impediment for an Executive Authority in taking action under Section 339 of the Act.
24.At this stage, this Court relevantly points out that Section 317 of the Act, 1920 pertains to 'Prosecution' for failure to comply with the order under Section 216 of the Act. However, it does not in any way affect the right of an Executive Authority to take action as per Section 339(2) of the Act, as per decision in Commissioner Pattukottai Municipality vs. Chandrasekaran, Reported in 1975(88) L.W.p.632. Further, the offence defined in Section 317(c) of the Act is different from that of the one mentioned in Section 317(a) of the Act. The gist of it is that after reconstruction has begun, an order is issued to prohibit its carrying on or completion, except upon certain terms, and that the order is disobeyed, as per decision in Venkata Sivayya (Veli Vela) vs. Emperor AIR 1927 Mad 442.
25.In fact, just because the Municipality has a remedy under Section 216 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, is no fetter to proceed under Section 317 of the Act, 1920, as per decision in Kandaswami Pillai vs. Municipal Commissioner, Palghat, Reported in AIR 1944 Mad P.476.
26.It is to be pointed out that the Notice visualised in Section 56 of the T.N.Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 is not an empty formality and a decision has to be taken when condition under Sub-Section (1), if fulfilled a notice is preceded by the decision that the provisions of Sections 49, 50, 54 and 56 are specified for the violation, as per decision between CMDA vs. Abdur Rehman, [2002 (2) MLJ 431]. Moreover, the notice specified in Section 56 of the T.N.Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 is a decision and therefore, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred and further that such a notice shall not have any effect pending determination of Application under Section 49(3) of the Act, as per decision between Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority vs. Abdur Rehman, Hotel Nest International, Chennai, [reported in 2002(3) Law Weekly 309].
27.It is to be remembered that an orderly planned development of Town is the Scheme of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The entertainment of Suit will be set at naught by side-stepping available remedies under the T.N.Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. To put it succinctly, the jurisdiction of a Civil Court is expressly barred by Section 101 r/w Sections 49, 56 and 80 of the Act.
28.It must be borne in mind that Section 56(2-A) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 permits the Planning Authority to seal and lock the premises in case the owner or occupier failed to comply with the notice issued earlier under Section 56(1) of the Act. In reality, the 'Planning Authority' is authorised to invoke the ingredients of Section 56(2-A) of the Act, notwithstanding the pendency of an Application under Section 49 or an Appeal under Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 or any litigation before a Court of Law.
29.In this connection it may not be out of place for this Court to make a pertinent mention that Section 80-A of the T.N.Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 speaks of filing of Revision Petition before the Government against the orders passed by the appropriate Planning Authority in respect of sealing of premises under Sub-Section (2-A) of Section 56 or under Section (4) of Section 57 of the Act. In a Revisional power, the Government has got requisite powers to examine the records of the Planning Authority and to take a decision in modifying, annulling, reversing or remitting the matter for reconsideration. As such, a valid order passed under Sub-Section (2-A) of Section 56 or Sub-Section (4) of Section 57 of the Act is a mandatory requirement for exercising Revisional Power under Section 80-A of the Act, as per decision between M/s.Sankaranthi Hotels Pvt.Ltd., vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, [reported in 2013(5) Law Weekly pg.864.] Furthermore, to ensure public health and welfare, Section 57 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 enjoins the appropriate Planning Authority to stop the Unauthorised development.
30.At this stage, this Court aptly points out the decision between P.A.Rani vs. K.G.Krishnan [reported in AIR 1994 Mad 323], wherein, it is held that 'Unauthorised constructions cannot be permitted to be occupied by the owner or lessee pending consideration of Application for permission submitted by the owner'.
31.It must be borne in mind that the paramount considerations or regulatory provisions for construction activities are Public Interest and Convenience. Also that on the subject of seeking sanction for construction, no vested right can be claimed by any citizen, de hors, from Public Interest or Public convenience, as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Howrah Municipal Corporation vs. V.Ganges Rope Company Ltd., [Reported in (2004) 1 SCC 663].
32.To put it precisely, the T.N.Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 deals with 'Planning of Land' and that Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act deals with 'Planning of Building'.
33.It is to be pointed out that the Government is the competent authority to grant exemption under Section 113 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The grant of 'Exemption' cannot be exercised freely and the said power of granting 'Exemption' of Building Rules, Regulations or Requirements of conditions specified in the Act, has to be used with caution and it justify or condone the minimum bona fide violations or deviations, as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court between the State of Rajasthan vs. H.B.Hotels [(2007) 2 SCC 468].
34.Continuing further, the Preamble of 'Satement of Objects and Reasons' for the Enactment of the T.N.Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and the Provisions of the Act give clearcut policy and Guidelines to the Government to exercise its powers and the Act is neither unbridled nor without any Guidelines and Section 113 of the Act is a valid provision, as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Consumer Action Group vs. State of Tamil Nadu [reported in AIR 2000 SC at pg.3060].
35.It cannot be lost sight of that the State Government cannot deviate from the procedure prescribed when granting 'Exemption' as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.M.Kurian vs. State of Kerala [reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court pg.1409]. Although Section 113 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 is silent as regards recording of reasons for the grant of 'Exemption', it is obligatory to record reasons for grant of such 'Exemption' as per the decision between S.Shanmughavelayudha Swamy Gounder vs. State of Tamil Nadu, [reported in 2005 Current Tamil Nadu Cases 202].
36.One cannot brush aside an important fact that Section 113-C of the T.N.Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, speaks of 'Exemption' in respect of development of certain buildings. Furthermore, the Government had framed the Guidelines for Exemption of Buildings, 2017 and the Tamil Nadu Assessment and Collection of Amount for Exemption of Buildings Rules, 2017 under Section 113-C of the T.N.Town and Country Planning Act, in G.O.Ms.Nos.110 and 111, dated 22.6.2017.
37.As per Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, any decision or order of the Tribunal or Government or Planning Authority or other Authorities or of any Officer under this Act, subject to any Appeal or Revision or Review provided under this Act, be final and shall not be liable to be questioned in any Court of Law. Therefore, it is latently and patently evident that the filing of a Civil Suit under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, is barred. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Civil Suit in O.S.No.100 of 2017, pending on the file of District Munsif Court, Tambaram, is per se not maintainable.
38.At this juncture, the Learned Sanding Counsel for the 3rd Respondent/Municipality will take further steps as per ingredients of Section 56 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971
39.Considering the fact that the 7th Respondent/School has put up the building without obtaining prior permission and that the Prosecution initiated by the 3rd Respondent/Municipality is pending in STC No.65/2018, on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, and notwithstanding the fact that the 7th Respondent/School's Application for Regularisation was returned and it is averred in the counter of 7th Respondent/School that the School is taking endeavours to resubmit the Application for Approval of the additional construction along with the particulars of other buildings, as required by the Authorities, this Court is of the considered view that the Third Respondent/The Commissioner, Tambaram Municipality, has come out with a categorical plea that the 7th Respondent/School had not obtained the Building Permission for the construction of entire building and also had put up the Additional Construction, despite the Application for permission being returned . Thereafter only, the 7th Respondent/School had applied for Regularisation of the 'Building' and the Application is pending. Under these circumstances, this Court directs the Official Respondents, viz., Respondents 2 to 4 to act in unison in taking necessary action against the concerned Violator and to take the same to its logical end, in accordance with Law. It is open to the Concerned Official Respondent (from among Respondents 2 to 4) to lock and seal the School Building and the Additional Construction put up by the School (without obtaining necessary Planning permission), within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. Further, this Court orders that the 7th Respondent/School shall not make use of the sealed portion of the School Building in issue. Moreover, the School Building shall not be put to use or occupation or any Third Party rights or encumbrance over the property shall be created. The Concerned Official Respondent (from among R2 to R4) is directed to disconnect the water supply forthwith to the unauthorised portion of the School Building. Apart from that, the Concerned Official Respondent (from among R2 to R4) shall inform the Concerned Area Engineer of the TANGEDCO/Electricity Department, Kadaperi, West Tambaram, to disconnect the Electricity supply to the violated portion of the building of the 7th Respondent/School forthwith. It is the primordial duty of the Concerned Respondents to ensure that the Building Completion Certificate is obtained by the 7th Respondent/School Authorities. Before parting with the case, this Court abundantly makes it quite clear that it is open to the 7th Respondent/School to pursue its remedy in respect of the Regularisation of the Building, as per Scheme 2017 of Section 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, before the Competent Authority, as per Law, Rules and Regulations, if it so desires/advised.
With the above observations/Directions, the Writ Petition shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(M.V.J.) (S.R.T.J.)
06.08.2018
msk
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
The Housing and Urban Development
Department,
Namaskkal Kavinzar Maligai,
3rd Floor, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009
2.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development
Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Maligai,
No.1, Gandhi-Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008
3.The Commissioner,
Tambvaram Municipality,
28, Muthuranga Mudali Street,
Tambaram West, Chennai-600 045
4.The Town Planning Officer,
Tambaram Municipality,
28, Muthuranga Mudali Street,
Tambaram West, Chennai-600 045
5.The Assistant Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Kadaperi, West Tambaram
(for favour of information and necessary action)
M.VENUGOPAL,J.
AND
S.RAMATHILAGAM,J.
Msk
W.P.No.1414 of 2018
06.08.2018