Madras High Court
M/S.Ambojini Property Developers vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 2 March, 2021
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 2.3.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P.No.458 of 2021
and
W.M.P.No.540 of 2021
M/s.Ambojini Property Developers
Private Limited, rep. herein
by its Resolution Professional
Mr.Anil Kumar Kheecha,
17/1, Poes Road, II Street, Teynampet,
Chennai 600 018. Petitioner
vs.
1. Government of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary,
The Housing and Urban Development
Department, Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Housing Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development
Authority, Egmore,
Chennai 600 008.
3. The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development
Authority, Egmore,
Chennai 600 008. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the
records of the order passed by the 3rd respondent on 18.3.2019 in
letter No.EC/SI/5054/2018 and quash the same and consequently
http://www.judis.nic.in
2/6
direct the 3rd respondent to consider the renewal application dated
23.3.2018 submitted by the petitioner on merits and pass necessary
orders for the renewal of the planning permission which was already
granted by the 3rd respondent vide Planning Permission in
No.C/PP/MSB-IT/64 A to R/2013, Permit Number 8132 in Letter
No.C3(N)/10826/2011, dated 12.12.2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan for1.3.2015
M/s.Ganesh and Ganesh
For R1 : Mr.M.Elumalai, AGP
For R2 & R3 : Mr.Karthik Rajan
ORDER
This writ petition is filed as against the order dated 18.3.2019 passed by the third respondent wherein the request for renewal of application of this petitioner dated 23.3.2018 was rejected by the third respondent.
2. The case of the petitioner is that they have got the planing permission issued by the third respondent to develop a double basement floor + combined stilt floor + two towers each with 1st floor to 16th floor + 17th floor (part) with 640 dwelling units and service block. The third respondent has also, after scrutinizing the documents, issued No Objection Certificate and also collected requisite charges including the infrastructure & development charges and FSI charges and granted planning permission in No.C/PP/MSB-IT/64 A to R/2013, http://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 Permit Number 8132 in Letter No.C3(N)/10826/2011, dated 12.12.2013. Such a planning permission was valid upto 11.12.2016. Though the planning permit was granted on 12.12.2013, the building licence was issued by the Grater Chennai Corporation only on 20.5.2015 and therefore, the petitioner could not commence the project due to the delay in issuing the building licence by the Greater Chennai Corporation. The petitioner has applied for renewal of planning permission which has been rejected by the impugned order and hence, the petitioner is before this court.
3. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan appearing for the petitioner submits that this petitioner has paid the entire development charges in the year 2013 itself and the planning permission has also been granted by the third respondent, however, in view of the delay in issuing the building licence by the Greater Chennai Corporation, the petitioner could not commence the project. He would further submit that the time line for filing the renewal application falls within the ambit of applicable provisions of law. Since the planning permission was granted on 12.12.2013 with a specific condition that the approval is not final and the applicant has to commence the project only after obtaining necessary building licence, http://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 the petitioner had to move for that and the building licence was granted only on 20.5.2015 and therefore, the planning permission got finality and validity only on 20.5.2015 and therefore, the petitioner's Application dated 23.3.2018 seeking first renewal is well within the stipulated time. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has also paid development charges and other required charges for planning permission and subsequent to the impugned order, the respondents have also called for certain documents vide their letter dated 18.2.2021 and in response to that the petitioner also submitted the required documents on 22.2.2021.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the Application seeking renewal of the planning permission was made within 3 years from 20.5.2015, the date when the building plan in question got finality on issuance of building licence by the Greater Chennai Corporation, the case of the petitioner shall be considered sympathetically for renewal of planning permission within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 2.3.2021.
Index: Yes/No. ssk.
To
1. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, The Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Housing Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
3. The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
4. M/s.Ambojini Property Developers Private Limited, rep. herein by its Resolution Professional Mr.Anil Kumar Kheecha, 17/1, Poes Road, II Street, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6 B.PUGALENDHI, J.
Ssk.
W.P.No.458 of 2021 2.3.2021.
http://www.judis.nic.in