Madras High Court
Rajappa vs Chennai Metropolitan on 21 August, 2017
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.08.2017 CORAM: THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.No.18638 of 2004 Rajappa ... Petitioner vs. 1. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarjan Maligai, 1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai 600 008. 2. The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (Taluk Office Ground), Ambattur, Chennai. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to grant electricity supply to the petitioner's premises at No.18, M.T.H. Road, Bazaar Street, Ambattur, Chennai - 53, without insisting on production of Completion Certificate from the 1st respondent as a pre-condition. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ramesh For 1st Respondent : Mr.Raja Srinivas For 2nd Respondent : Mr.P.R.Dhilip Kumar * * * * * O R D E R
The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to grant electricity supply to his premises at No.18, M.T.H. Road, Bazaar Street, Ambattur, Chennai - 53, without insisting on production of Completion Certificate from the 1st respondent, as a pre-condition.
2. According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner of the property situated at No.18, M.T.H. Road, Bazaar Street, Ambattur, Chennai and he was granted Planning Permission from Ambattur Municipality on 19.02.2002 to construct a commercial complex in the said site with a specific direction to complete the construction by 18.02.2005. The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent/Electricity Board is insisting on a No Objection Certificate from the 1st respondent/CMDA to effect electricity connection to his premises. When the petitioner applied to the 1st respondent/CMDA for a No Objection Certificate, he was informed that CMDA has taken a policy decision to issue No Objection Certificate only for buildings in the cities and not for buildings in the Mofussil.
3. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.15556 of 2004 and this Court, by an order dated 08.06.2004 directed the 1st respondent/CMDA to dispose of the petitioner's application, dated 12.05.2004 seeking NOC, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that electricity supply was not effected to the petitioner's premises on the ground that he has not produced No Objection Certificate from the 1st respondent/CMDA, while the petitioner had obtained Planning Permission and completed construction of the building in question in the year 2005 itself. It is his contention that the 1st respondent/CMDA ought to have issued No Objection Certificate to the petitioner, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has paid requisite charges to the 1st respondent/CMDA under the Regularisation Scheme. Learned counsel further submitted that temporary electricity supply was effected to the petitioner's premises, pursuant to the order of this Court.
5. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of Section 113(A) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, the date of submitting the application for payment of regularisation fee has been taken into account and that the petitioner would be entitled to the relief sought in this Writ Petition.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/CMDA submitted that though the petitioner obtained Planning Permission in the year 2002 and construction of the premises in question was completed in the year 2005 itself, the cut-off date as regards seeking regularisation of building was fixed as 28.02.1999 and that applications submitted prior to 30.06.2002 alone can be considered.
7. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to a First Bench decision of this Court in the case of Consumer Action Group vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, (2006 (4) CTC 483), wherein, it is held as follows:
"32. ...
(viii) The CMDA and the Corporation are directed to take action against the illegal multi-storied and special buildings, as per the recommendation of the Monitoring Committee. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai is directed to provide necessary police protection for taking action against illegal constructions.
(ix) To avoid future violations, buildings should be certified as having been constructed in compliance of planning permit and other applicable laws. The Certifying Officer will be personally responsible if any illegal building is certified. Electricity, water connection and occupation should be contingent on such certificate. In respect of the builders who have been identified by the Monitoring Committee as having put up illegal buildings, constructions by such builders should be certified for compliance only by the Chief Planner, who shall bear personal responsibility.
(x) The Chief Planner is directed to decide the applications for exemption pertaining to constructions prior to the cut-off date, i.e 28.02.1999 and dispose of all the Applications within a period of three months. It is needless to say that all the Applications claiming exemption under the amended provisions of Section 113-A of the Act in respect of constructions made after 28.2.1999 shall stand dismissed and those Applications shall not be entertained by the Government and/or the authority or officer authorised by the Government under Section 113-A of the Act. The Chief Secretary is directed to allot the hearing of Appeals atleast to two officers in addition to the Housing and Urban Development Secretary.
(xi) Where claims are made that the unauthorised/deviated constructions were eligible for protection under the 1999 scheme - to determine the veracity of claims and evolve criteria for such identification which may include the following:
(a) Date of planning permission and proof of completion;
(b) Electricity service connection and water connection; and
(c) Registration of sale deed conveying constructed area.
(xii) The Monitoring Committee shall be consulted for applications claiming exemption under Section 113-A of the Act as well as Appeals under Section 113-A(6). The Monitoring Committee shall also be consulted for changes in the Master Plan and Development Control Rules, which affect construction activity in the city."
8. In a similar circumstance, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.Prakash Chand Jain vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 2 MLJ 551 has held as follows:
"27. We have put a question to the learned counsel for CMDA as to how the developer got electricity, water and sewerage connection without obtaining completion certificate from CMDA. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the builders have now invented a novel device by filing writ petition directing the authorities to provide electricity, water and sewerage connection without insisting completion certificate from CMDA.
31. The authorities exercising statutory functions under various enactments must assist CMDA to implement the Development Control Rules. If such authorities entertain request and provide electricity, water and sewerage connection, it would help the builder to bypass the mandatory requirement of the Statute, requiring completion certificate to occupy the building. We therefore hold that the Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, have no authority to issue electricity, water and sewerage connection without producing of the Completion Certificate from CMDA. We are therefore of the view that the builders have no right to approach the Court for mandamus to provide electricity, water and sewerage connection, without insisting completion certificate from CMDA.
32. We, therefore, by following Consumer Action Group, hold that writ petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct TANGEDCO and TNWSS Board to provide electricity, water and sewerage connection and the Corporation/local body to assess the building and to provide door number, without insisting Completion Certificate from CMDA is not maintainable."
9. On a reading of the above decisions of this Court, it is clear that the petitioner need to get Completion Certificate from the 1st respondent/CMDA for getting electricity supply and he cannot rely upon the provisions of Section 113-A of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, as this Court has fixed time limit for making the application as 30.06.2002 for the buildings that have been constructed prior to 28.02.1999.
10. Hence, the Completion Certificate from the 1st respondent/CMDA is a must. Since the petitioner had the benefit of the interim order, it is open to the 1st respondent/CMDA to produce the Completion Certificate to the petitioner in respect of the building in question, if construction is as per plan, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the building is in violation of the Plan, the 2nd respondent/Electricity Board is empowered to disconnect electricity supply to the petitioner's premises. The 2nd respondent/Electricity Board must ensure the correctness of the Completion Certificate with CMDA within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of that Certificate.
The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.22213 of 2004 is closed.
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No 21.08.2017
aeb
To:
1. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarjan Maligai,
1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Chennai 600 008.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
(Taluk Office Ground),
Ambattur, Chennai.
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
(aeb)
Order in
W.P.No.18638 of 2004
21.08.2017