Madras High Court
R.Suresh Babu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 March, 2019
Author: N.Kirubakaran
Bench: N.Kirubakaran, G.R.Swaminathan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date of Reserving the Order Date of Pronouncing the Order
08.04.2019 25.07.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD) No. 8208 of 2019
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.6445 of 2019
1.R.Suresh Babu
2.S.Sathya .. Petitioners
-vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Secretary,
Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Fort St George,
Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
3.The Member Secretary/Commissioner,
Kodaikanal Municipality and
Kodaikanal Local Planning Authority,
Kodaikanal,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to permit the
petitioners to use the building namely “Cherry Blossom Homestay” as
Homestay in the light of the uses permitted for the primary residential zone
under the new master plan and consequently, forbearing the third
respondent from initiating any coercive action until disposal the application
preferred by the petitioner dated 18.03.2019 pending on the file of the first
respondent for the petitioners property in Ward-D, Block No.20, T.S.No.58/5
and 58/7 Carmelpuram, Shenbaganur, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul Distirct
within the time frame stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Chellapandian
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian
Additional Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen
ORDER
Order of this Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN , J., The writ petitioners are the owner of the property described in the petition. A building measuring an extent of 1934 square feet and 1430 square feet was erected thereon.
2.According to the petitioners, approval was given by the Commissioner of the Kodaikanal Municipality on 16.11.2015 and http://www.judis.nic.in 3 13.08.2015. The building is located in a primary residential zone. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's building can be utilized as Homestay. But it is yet to be issued with a license in this regard by the Competent Authority. An application dated 18.03.2019 has been submitted.
3.The grievance of the petitioner is that when this application is pending before the concerned authority, it is not for the respondents to initiate coercive action under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. Even according to the petitioners, approval was obtained way back in the year 2015. But the application to use the buildings as Homestay was given only on 18.03.2019. This writ petition came to be filed on 28.03.2019. The prayer in the writ petition is that the petitioners should be permitted to use the petition mentioned building as a Homestay and that the authorities should be restrained from initiating any coercive action.
4.We are of the view that such a prayer cannot be granted. Unless the petitioners get permission from the competent authority, they cannot be allowed to use the building in question as a Homestay. Of-course, if the petitioners are using the building only for the purpose, for which, approval was given and if the building had been constructed as per the conditions in http://www.judis.nic.in 4 the approval order, the respondents obviously cannot take any coercive action against the writ petitioner. But if the petitioners are using the building as a Homestay without getting permission and if the construction is not as per the planning norms, then certainly, the authority is justified in initiating the coercive action. More than anything else, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1952 AIR 12, 1952 SCR 28 (State of Orissa Vs. Madan Gopal Rungta), Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be used for the purpose of giving interim relief as the only and final relief. An interim relief can be granted only in aid of and as ancillary to the main relief which may be available to the party on final determination of his rights in a suit or proceeding. The petitioners have rightly moved the authorities. Therefore, they must pursue their remedy before the authority only. It is not for this Court to interfere at this stage.
5.With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[N.K.K.,J.] [G.R.S.,J.]
25.07.2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
rmi
http://www.judis.nic.in
5
To
1.The Secretary,
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fort St George, Chennai.
2.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.
and G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
rmi W.P.(MD) No. 8208 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD) No.6445 of 2019 25.07.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in