Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Commissioner, Corp. Of Chennai vs M/S Tamil Nadu Cricket Association on 31 March, 2015
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, N.V. Ramana
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3283 OF 2015
(Arising Out of SLP (Civil)No.17101 of 2013)
COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF CHENNAI …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsels for the parties. Leave granted.
Admittedly, the I, J, and K stands have been constructed in anticipation of permission to construct. Such permission was subsequently granted with conditions including those of partial demolition so as to ensure compliance with the requirements of set-back under the Regulations in force. Equally admitted is the position that a multi level car parking facility was a part and parcel of the same building plan for construction alongwith the I, J and K stands. Work/construction Signature Not Verified of the said facility is yet to begin. Digitally signed by Madhu Bala Date: 2015.04.06 14:38:48 IST Reason: In the above circumstances, the use of I, J, K stands cannot be permitted, even as an interim measure, as has been suggested on behalf of 2 Respondent No.1. Clearly and evidently the I, J, K stands do not conform to the requirement of set-back as stipulated under the relevant Regulations. The Court is not in a position to rule out the threat to public safety that has been caused by the aforesaid three stands not conforming to the set-back requirements. Even if the Inspection Report dated 18th February, 2014 is to be accepted, the problem of set-back would still persist in respect of stand K. Though the aforesaid report does not indicate anything adverse in respect of the I and J stands, what cannot be ignored is that the record indicates that in respect of I and J stands also some relaxation has been granted. It has not been projected before us with any clarity that the use of I and J stands minus stand K is feasible and does not compromise with public safety. We are, therefore, not inclined to even permit user of the aforesaid two stands to the exclusion of the stand K. In these circumstances, the Court would come to the conclusion that the requirement of the Regulations insofar as the set-back is concerned must be complied with by the first respondent, if required by carrying necessary demolition in accordance with the provisions of law. Once the same is done, the first respondent may inform the 3 appellant who will carry out an inspection and if in the course of inspection the deficiencies are found to be removed, the Corporation will act accordingly.
Insofar as the requirement of multi level car parking is concerned though it is a part of the plan submitted to the Development Authority and was required to be undertaken and completed along with the construction of the I,J,K stands, as the same is a facility and may not directly involve the question of public safety we permit the first respondent to give an undertaking before the appellant as regards the period within which the said facility will be made available. Once the said undertaking is given to the satisfaction of the appellant, necessary and further action may be taken.
Needless to say the appellant would be expected to take all decisions in the matter including demolition as may be requested by the first respondent by submitting requisite plans/applications, with utmost expedition as the use of the additional capacity of the stadium is involved.
In view of what has been stated above, we do not find any further live issue to be subsisting in the 4 appeal which would require our consideration. We, therefore, dispose of the appeal by reversing the order of the Madras High Court dated 06.02.2013 insofar as two issues i.e. set back and multi level car parking are concerned. Insofar as traffic permission of the concerned police authority is concerned, the same would be subject to review by the concerned authority and appropriate decision/action will be taken once the necessary work is executed by the first respondent.
…………………………………….J. (RANJAN GOGOI) …………………………………….J. (N.V. RAMANA) NEW DELHI 31ST MARCH, 2015 5 ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.6 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17101/2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06/02/2013 in WP No. 13765/2012 passed by the High Court Of Madras) COMMISSIONER, CORP. OF CHENNAI Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION & ORS Respondent(s) (With interim relief and office report) (For final disposal) Date : 31/03/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA For Petitioner(s) Mr. V. Giri,Sr.Adv.
Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,Adv. Ms. J.Janani,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Amit Sibal,Sr.Adv. R.No.1 Ms. Radha Rangaswamy,Adv.
Mr. Rupendra Singh,Adv.
For TN Mr. Subramonium Prasad,AAG Mr. B. Balaji,Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Sharma,Adv. Ms. R.Shase,Adv.
R.No.4 Mr. V. Krishnamurthy,Sr.Adv.
Mr. V. Balachandran,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard learned counsels for the parties. Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(MADHU BALA) (ASHA SONI)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)