Madras High Court
A.Saravanan vs The District Collector on 21 September, 2015
Bench: R.Sudhakar, V.M.Velumani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.09.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P.(MD)No.13102 of 2011
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011
A.Saravanan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Ramnad District,
Ramnad.
2.The Commissioner,
Rameswaram Municipality,
Rameswaram,
Ramnad District.
3.The Managing Director,
Daiwik Hotels (P) Ltd.,
Athikadu (Near Rameswaram Bus Stop),
Rameswaram. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to
demolish the illegal/unauthorised construction made by the third respondent
at Hotel Daiwik, Athikadu (Near Rameswaram Bus Stand), Rameswaram, Ramnad
District.
!For Petitioner : Mr.Gnana Gurunathan
For Respondents : Mr.C.Selvaraj
Special Govt. Pleader for R.1 & R.2
Mr.C.Sakthi Manikandan
for M/s.Fox Mandal & Associates for R.3
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by R.SUDHAKAR,J.) This writ petition has been filed in public interest, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to demolish the illegal/unauthorised construction made by the third respondent at Hotel Daiwik, Athikadu (Near Rameswaram Bus Stand), Rameswaram, Ramnad District.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent has put up illegal construction near the temple in the name and style of 'Hotel Daiwik'. The petitioner made a complaint to the first respondent about the illegal construction. Despite the same, no action has been taken so far. Hence, the present writ petition.
4. We find that the official respondents have not filed their counter affidavit. The third respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein every factum alleged by the petitioner is disputed by the third respondent stating that the building has been approved by the competent authority and construction has been put up in terms of design and plan approved. The details of the same are set out in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, thus:
"10. I state that Daiwik Hotels (P) Ltd., is a law abiding Corporate House and has conformed to all the rules and laws of the State and the region. The Hotel building has been designed by a renowned Mumbai based architect, Era Architects, and a local engineer, Er.M.Haza Syed Ibrahim who is also a licensed building surveyor and consulting engineer from Rameswaram for Building Plan approval strictly following and incorporating the local rules and regulations. The structural designs have been planned and overseen by a reputed Structural Engineering firm from Bangalore. The Hotel started construction only after receiving building sanctions and the building includes a Ground plus three (G plus 3) story building for the hotel and the complete structure of the building has been completed over 6-7 months back while interior works are almost completed. The Fire department, the Police, TNEB have all given the project clearances as per the plans that have been sanctioned by the Rameswaram Municipality and a HT TNEB connection has already been given to the building. The Department of Tourism, Chennai has given the project approval as a 3 star category hotel as per the municipal plans that have been sanctioned and the amenities that are being provided. Total fees and charges as paid by the said Hotel till date are approximately as follows:
a) Manval Workers GWF of TN CW WF Board - Rs.1,04,100/-
b) Rameswaram Municipality - Rs. 54,965/-
c) Urban Development Department,
Govt. of TN - Rs.6,99,925/-
d) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board -
Regn. & EMD fees - Rs.1,60,500/-
e) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board -
HT charges - Rs.2,41,365/-"
5. The third respondent also states that there is no violation of G.O.No.22, dated 30.01.1997 and restriction on construction of building near the temple does not apply to the present case. It is also stated that the petitioner is a Secretary of a political party and he has no locus standi to file the present writ petition in public interest, but it is only a private interest.
6. In paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit, the third respondent states that a State-of-the-Art Sewerage Treatment Plant (STP), rain water harvesting and solar system for water heating have been installed in the environment friendly building. They implemented energy saving equipments, i.e. VRV Air-Conditioning machines, etc. and they used LED light fittings, 5 Star BEE rated pumps, etc. All these factors clearly established that without verifying the facts, the writ petition has been filed.
7. The third respondent further states that the construction of the building has been done after following the statutory rules and regulations and there is no irregularity in the construction. Sanction granted by the authority concerned is very much available.
8. The learned Counsel for the third respondent would emphasis before this Court the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Dattraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26269 of 2004, dated 14.12.2004, to plead that judicial process is misused by the petitioner.
9. In paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit, it is further stated thus:
"19. Accordingly and from the aforesaid, it would appear that construction of the hotel building was scrutinized and checked by different departments of the Government and sanctioned by all concerned. The said Daiwik Hotels (P) Ltd., have applied for construction of the hotel building following all statutory rules and regulations and there being no default or irregularity, the constructions of the hotel was sanctioned by the authorities and permission was accorded from all concerned. I state that this Writ Petition in the garb of Public Interest Litigation is frivolous, vexatious and liable to be dismissed in limini. It has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in Dattraj Nathuji Thaware - vs - State of Maharashtra, in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26269 of 2004, dated 14.12.2004 that - "Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives, and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs...." In a case where all the statutory authorities have taken appropriate steps and actions as per statute and prevailing rules and as sanctioned the construction, under such circumstances there is no scope of any Public Interest Litigation and such objection should be dismissed with exemplary cost and damages."
10. Taking note of the above, we are constrained to dismiss this writ petition, observing that the present writ petition is nothing but a private interest or motivated one and there is no public interest involved. We strongly condemn the conduct of the petitioner in filing this kind of frivolous writ petition.
11. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.
To
1.The District Collector, Ramnad District, Ramnad.
2.The Commissioner, Rameswaram Municipality, Rameswaram, Ramnad District.
.