Madras High Court
Unknown vs Dated: 24/05/2012 on 24 May, 2012
Bench: V.Dhanapalan, T.Mathivanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24/05/2012 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN W.P.No.13765 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by V.DHANAPALAN, J.) Notice of motion returnable in two (2) weeks.
2. Heard Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned Government Pleader for the first respondent; Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, learned Advocate General appearing for the second respondent and Mr.P.H.Arvindh Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the third respondent.
3. The petitioner M/s.Tamil Nadu Cricket Association has moved this Court, challenging the order passed by the third respondent in its proceedings in Letter No.D6/0176/2011, dated 08.08.2011, and also seeking for a consequential direction to the third respondent to permit the petitioner to use the stands 'I', 'J' and 'K' at M.A.Chidambaram Stadium at Chepauk, Chennai, pursuant to the approval letter in Letter(Ms)No.110, dated 16.05.2012, issued by the first respondent to the second respondent, granting approval to the recommendation of the Multi-storied Building Panel for issuance of planning permission to the petitioner, inter alia, for the stands, "I", "J" and "K".
4. Along with the Writ Petition, the petitioner has also filed a Miscellaneous Petition for grant of interim injunction, to restrain the respondents from interfering with the use of 'I', 'J' and 'K' stands in M.A.Chidambaram Stadium at Chepauk, Chennai, by the public through the sale of tickets by the petitioner for semi-final on 25.05.2012 and the final on 27.05.2012 of the Indian Premier League (in short 'IPL') Cricket Tournaments.
5. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the above said stadium was originally constructed in the year 1972; prior to which, historic cricket matches were witnessed from makeshift stands ever since the beginning of the last century; since the stadium was exposed to elements, after a period of time, the structural stability of the construction began to deteriorate; the cricket stadia across the world were asked to design certain modern features as improvements by the ICC (International Cricket Council) to which the Apex cricketing body in India is, Board of Control for Cricket in India viz., BCCI, which is the founding member; the features included press box to seat 250, quick evacuation for public, medical room, umpires room, CCTV cameras for security, appropriate stations to use 36 to 38 high definition camera equipments, anti-doping personnel room, spectator comforts etc.; considering the same, the petitioner, after taking a decision in the 'General Body Meeting' held in June, 2009, and a resolution passed thereon, as there was a 10th edition of the World Cup scheduled to be held in February, 2011 at the stadium, decided to do the reconstruction work in phases; initially, three stands were put up and, prior to the World Cup, six more stands were made ready out of the total of 12 stands; the stands in question viz., 'I', 'J' and 'K' were completed by then leaving only the pavilion as well as the area occupied by the Madras Cricket Club (MCC) to be reconstructed after demolition; thereafter, they made an application for planning permission and building sanction on 24.09.2009 to the second respondent for three stands of three levels and three stands of four levels viz., stand 'C', 'D', 'E', 'F', 'G' and 'H'; as such, the planning permission was granted by the second respondent on 26.08.2010 subject to completion certificate issued by the Environmental Impact Assessment Committee and the application for demolition of the next three stands was made on 09.04.2010 and it was granted by the third respondent on 07.05.2010; the application for planning permit and building sanction for three stands viz., 'I', 'J' and 'K' was made on 17.05.2010 to the second respondent and, on 08.09.2010 only, the second respondent gave advice to pay security fee; accordingly, it was paid by the petitioner; on the basis of the approval granted, the construction of six stands was completed and the construction work in respect of three new stands was commenced in anticipation of the approval and, it was only on 05.04.2011, the second respondent raised the issue of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearance for 'I', 'J' and 'K' stands and the petitioner was informed by the Coastal Regulation Zone authorities that the proposed reconstruction site would fall within 100 metres distance of the Buckingham Canal, a permanent water way; in anticipation of this issue being raised by the second respondent, the petitioner had, in the month of May, 2010, itself, prior to the advice from the second respondent, applied for necessary approval to the State Level Coastal Zone Management Authority and the said authority called for various details and, therefore, there was certain delay in the matter.
6. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that based on the resolution, dated 13.01.2010, and after getting necessary approval from Coastal Regulation Zone authorities, the petitioner had made an application on 13.01.2010 for the balance 'I', 'J' and 'K' stands and, thereafter, the said application was scrutinised and the second respondent processed the application and placed it before the Multi-storied Building Panel and it was also decided to recommend and forward the proposal for issuance of the planning permission and the same was sent to the Government which is the approving authority of the Multi-storied Building Panel, in the second respondent's letter dated 26.04.2012; therefore, it cannot be construed that the construction made by the petitioner, anticipating the approval, in the stands 'I', 'J' and 'K' was unauthorised or illegal, as there was need for immediate construction and to maintain the international standard of the stadium.
7. Also, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that in the letter in Letter (Ms) No.110 dated 16.05.2012, the Government have decided to give the approval on certain conditions and, therefore, requested the second respondent to take necessary action accordingly for issuance of the planning permission. He would further point out that in the recent letter, dated 18.05.2012, the Government, after referring to the earlier proceedings, informed the second respondent about the Government's decision in giving approval, subject to the conditions mentioned in the letter, dated 16.05.2012, in which they have pointed out about the revised site plan incorporating the correct area statement and to furnish the approved demolition plan for the structures shown as for demolition in the site plan in the set back space of 'I', 'J', 'K' stands and Madras Cricket Club land and demolish the same before issuance of the planning permission.
8. In his last limb of submissions, the learned Senior Counsel, on instructions from the petitioner, would consistently plead before this Court that as they are the body conducting various international programmes, it is necessary to maintain the international design and keep the stadium to the high standards and, therefore, what are all the corrections pointed out by the Government in its above letters shall necessarily be carried out by the petitioner and they are also prepared to give an undertaking to abide by whatever the conditions to be imposed in demolishing structures shown as for demolition in the site plan in the set back space of I, J, K stands and Madras Cricket Club in the next phase; as such, as the Government has taken a positive decision subject to certain conditions and the petitioner is prepared to carry on the same and as of now there will be prestigious IPL semi-final and final matches going to be held on 25.05.2012 and 27.05.2012 with a capacity of 12,500 spectators and, further, about 80 million people all over the world may watch the matches and, if any seats go unfilled, it would show to the world that the petitioner is not keeping the stadium in an international standard and, therefore, in view of the decision taken by the Government to consider their request for approval particularly in respect of the stands in question viz., 'I', 'J' and 'K' with certain rectification, there is a prima facie case for permitting the petitioner to use the stands in question for the IPL semi-final and final matches scheduled to be held on 25.05.2012 and 27.05.2012. Accordingly, apprehending that the respondents may interfere with the use of the stands in question during these matches, the petitioner has prayed for an interim order.
9. On the other hand, Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, learned Advocate General appearing for the second respondent, would contend, that, as on date, the stands in question are unauthorised and there is no approval; though the Government has considered the recommendation forwarded by the second respondent, three conditions were pointed out by them to be fulfilled by the petitioner viz., (1)Environmental clearance before issuance of completion certificate; (2)No objection certificate from Police (Traffic) and Director of Fire and Rescue Services (for the revised proposal) before issue of development charges advice and (3)No objection certificate from Indian Air Force and the revised site plan was to be incorporated with approval for demolition plan in the structures shown in the stands in question in addition to demolition of the Madras Cricket Club; therefore, the petitioner has no legal right to claim the use of the stands 'I', 'J' and 'K' for the proposed matches to be held on 25.05.2012 and 27.05.2012. He would further point out that the petitioner has made an application only on 13.01.2012 for the construction of 'I', 'J' and 'K' stands and multi level car parking and it is not made on 17.05.2010 as claimed by the petitioner. He pointed out from para 4 of the counter affidavit of the second respondent that the Multi-storied Building Panel recommended for forwarding the proposal for issuance of the planning permit and the same was sent to the Government, which is the approving authority for the Multi-storied Building Panel on 12.04.2012; in their letter dated 26.04.2012, some queries sought for by the Government have been sent to the Government and, therefore, it is not proper for the petitioner to use the stands in question without proper approval and, in any eventuality, it is for the second respondent and the State to take the responsibility, if permission is granted or any order is passed in respect of the use of the stands in question.
10. Mr.P.H.Arvindh Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the third respondent, in his submission, has consistently pointed out that the petitioner Association has voluntarily ceased the usage of the said three stands even though they were ready for use for more than a year; the legality of the construction made is still in question with no verification of compliance by the third respondent; therefore, the stands in question were not used in the last one year as the legality of the construction is not approved and, hence, the petitioner cannot ask for any direction to use the stands in question and, if any adversity takes place, the third respondent is not responsible, in the absence of any verification by him.
11. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the State adopted the arguments of the learned Advocate General as well as the learned Additional Advocate General.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents annexed in the typed set of papers.
13. On a perusal of the documents, what transpires is that the petitioner has made an application on 17.05.2010 to the second respondent for grant of planning permit and building sanction for three stands, viz., I, J and K and, thereafter, the petitioner has resubmitted the said application on 13.01.2012 to the second respondent for the proposed construction of I, J, K stands and multi level car parking in the existing stadium at No.5, Victoria Hostel Road, Chepauk, Chennai. The matter was placed before the Multi-storied Building Panel in the meeting held on 13.3.2012 and, ultimately, the Multistoried Building Panel recommended for approval of the above said proposed construction and forwarded its recommendation to the State Government by its letters, dated 12.4.2012 and 26.4.2012. Thereafter, the Government addressed a letter to the Member Secretary, CMDA on 16.5.2012 for grant of the planning permission subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions and on payment of development charges. On 18.5.2012, the Secretary to Government, Housing Urban and Development Department addressed a letter to the Member Secretary, CMDA informing that the Government has approved the proposal, however, subject to the conditions, viz., to obtain revised site plan, to furnish approved demolition plan for the structures shown in the site plan in the set back space of I, J, K stands.
14. The importance of the intentional games and the promotion of sports and cricket events are pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel. It is also informed that after several events, at present, semi-final and final of Indian Premier League Cricket tournaments are scheduled to be held at M.A.Chidambaram Stadium at Chepauk on 25.5.2012 and 27.5.2012 respectively. At the end of his arguments, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed on record the recommendation of the Director General of Fire and Rescue Services dated 22.05.2012 and pointed out that the committee has mentioned that the building has 7 metres of side set back area at all sides and the available set back area should be always kept free from car parking. Therefore, based on the recommendation of the MSB Committee of northern region, No Objection Certificate is granted for construction of 'I', 'J' and 'K' stands. When that position is clear, it is not for the respondents to refuse the permission for use of the place. The petitioner is apprehending that there may be some interference by the respondents. At the same time, the fact that the Government, in its two communications, dated 16.5.2012 and 18.5.2012, has taken certain positive decisions that the approval may be granted subject to the petitioner rectifying the deficiencies as per law, cannot be brushed aside.
15. In view of the above stated circumstances coupled with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case and, therefore, keeping in mind the prestigious IPL tournaments, viz., Semi-final and Final which are scheduled to be held on 25.5.2012 and 27.5.2012 respectively, we are inclined to grant interim injunction as prayed for, for a limited period, i.e. one week from today, however, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall give proper undertaking to the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, 3rd respondent herein for providing public safety and security and for proper maintenance of I, J and K stands during the events of Semi-final and Final IPL Cricket tournaments to be held on 25.05.2012 and 27.05.2012;
(ii) The petitioner shall also give undertaking to own the responsibility if any untoward incident happens or any damage occurs during the above said tournaments and indemnify thereof;
(iii) The petitioner shall pay necessary taxes which are being levied by the respondents without any delay thereof.
It is made clear that this order is subject to the result of the writ petition.
suk mmi