Madras High Court
R.S.Madhavan vs The Chief Secretary on 27 October, 2021
Author: K.Kalyanasundaram
Bench: K.Kalyanasundaram, V.Sivagnanam
W.P.No.14736 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 27.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
W.P.No.14736 of 2021
R.S.Madhavan ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Chief Secretary
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St. George
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Principal Secretary
Housing & Urban Development Dept.,
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St.George
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Principal Secretary
Municipality & Rural Development Dept.,
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St.George
Chennai – 600 009.
4.The Commissioner
Corporation of Greater Chennai
Chennai – 600 003.
5.The Central Regional Deputy Commissioner
Corporation of Greater Chennai
No.36B/12B, Pullah Avenue
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.14736 of 2021
Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 030.
6.Periyasamy ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5, particularly
with the 4th respondent to take necessary action as against the 6 th respondent
for giving false information/not taking proper action with a view to
safeguard the deviation building owned by Mr.T.Soundarrajan at No.5/2, 6th
Street, Jai Nagar, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106, on the basis of the
representation dated 31.08.2020.
For petitioner : Mr.R.Thanjan
For respondents : Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, GA for RR1 to 3
Mr.K.Raja Srinivas, Sr.SC
for RR 4 & 5
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by V.SIVAGNANAM, J.,) The petitioner is before this Court with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus, directing 4th respondent to take necessary action as against the 6th respondent for giving false information with a view to safeguard the deviation building owned by Mr.T.Soundarrajan at No.5/2, 6th Street, Jai Nagar, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106, on the basis of the representation dated 31.08.2020.
2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14736 of 2021
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Thanjan, submitted that the petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.2415 of 2017 against the Member Secretary, CMDA, Chennai and the respondents 4 to 6 herein and also against one Soundarrajan, for demolishing the unauthorized construction put up at Door No. No.5/2, 6th Street, Jai Nagar, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. He also sent a representation to the concerned authorities and on failure of taking action, he filed the W.P.No.2415 of 2017. This Court by its order dated 01.02.2017 directed the respondents concerned to conclude the proceedings within a period of two months. In the meantime, the 6th respondent furnished some information on 17.10.2016 containing the particulars of the building description, but the same was wrong. As per the directions of this Court, the 6th respondent conducted inspection on the subject property. Now, the present writ petition has been filed, since the 6th respondent has not acted properly. Further on the complaint sent by the petitioner on 10.12.2016 as against the 6th respondent, the petitioner also issued with stop work notice/notice calling for approved plan for his residential buildings constructed in the year 1972, in order to take revenge against him, for his refusal to withdraw the complaint given by him against the said Soundarrajan.
3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14736 of 2021
3.The learned Senior Standing Counsel, Mr.Raja Srinivas, appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 would submit that in view of the order made in the W.P.No.2415 of 2017, lock and seal and demolision notice were issued against the said Soundarrajan. Thereafter, he filed a revision before the Government under Section 80A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. Till the disposal of the revision, further action has not been taken by the respondent-Corporation. Thus by an order dated 15.05.2017, the 2nd respondent ordered for re-inspection and issued fresh notice for lock and seal, detailing all the violations in both the builidngs floor wise and violations pertaining to set back, parking, portions of unauthorized construction, usage etc., and also granted 30 days time to give his reply on the aspect 'why action should not be initiated to lock and seal the premises I&II ?'. He would further submit that the Division Bench of this Court in a writ petition W.P.No.25297 of 2011, directed the Chennai Corporation that the person who is filing the writ petition must file an affidavit stating he has constructed his house in accordance with the plan duly approved by the CMDA and the Corporation and also directed the Chennai Corporation and CMDA to take action against the person who is constructing the building and also the against the person who has made the complaint. Therefore, the 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14736 of 2021 6th respondent issued notice for production of approved plan and issued lock and seal notice against the petitioner.
4.On the representation of the petitioner, the Chennai Corporation issued lock and seal and demolition notice to the said Soundarrajan, who inturn filed a writ petition in W.P.No.5736 of 2017 and he also filed a special revision under Section 80A of the Act along with a stay petition. In the writ petition, this Court directed the 1st respondent therein to consider the special revision, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months and till the disposal of the special revision, no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondent authorities. In view of the direction of this Court, second lock and seal and demolition notice was issued by the 6th respondent against the said Soundarrajan on 07.06.2017. On 31.10.2019, the Chennai Corporation by its order in G.O.(3D).No.161 confirming the earlier order and directed the CMDA to pursue the action accordingly. Therefore, the action is in progress. He would further contended that since the action is being taken against the persons who are doing unlawful construction, the 6th respondent is not intentionally helping anyone and the writ petition is not maintainable and 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14736 of 2021 also liable to be dismissed.
5.We have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. On perusal of records would show that there are cases and counter cases against each other. Further the complaint against each other with regard to unauthorized construction, the Chennai Corporation has issued notices and action has been taken. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that no further direction is required to the 4th respondent to take necessary action against the 6th respondent and we find no merits in this case.
6.Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
(M.K.K.S.J.,) (V.S.G.J.,)
27.10.2021
Jer
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.14736 of 2021
To
1.The Chief Secretary
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St. George
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Principal Secretary
Housing & Urban Development Dept.,
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St.George
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Principal Secretary
Municipality & Rural Development Dept.,
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St.George
Chennai – 600 009.
4.The Commissioner
Corporation of Greater Chennai
Chennai – 600 003.
5.The Central Regional Deputy Commissioner Corporation of Greater Chennai No.36B/12B, Pullah Avenue Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 030.
7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.14736 of 2021 K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
Jer W.P.No.14736 of 2021 27.10.2021 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/