Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(vi) The 1st Respondent/Secretary, Urban and Housing Department, Chennai in Letter No.15422/UD-VI/2012 dated 21.05.2015 had passed an order and directed the 3rd Respondent/ Corporation of Chennai to de-seal the building for three months for the purpose of rectification of the deviations and to restore the building as per the approved plan. Pursuant to the order dated 31.07.2015, the 3rd Respondent/Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai had ordered the 4th Respondent/Area Engineer, New Zone  VIII, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai to de-seal the property. After carrying out the rectification on 15.10.2015, an affidavit of compliance was filed with the plan for regularisation of the small deviations.
24.Coming to the aspect of the Government exempting the building from the provisions of the Development Regulation 25(c) etc. (mentioned in para 25 of the order dated 01.02.2016), it is to be borne in mind that in Law, the power of granting exemption of building rules, regulations or requirements of conditions imposed in the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 has to be pressed into service with utmost care, caution and circumspection, bearing in mind the prime fact that the building rules and regulations exist for the same being adhered to by the concerned. As a matter of fact, the State Government cannot deviate from the procedure prescribed and further, the power of the Government to exempt any land or building etc., from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 or rules or regulations made thereunder as per Section 113 of the Act, cannot be exercised freely. In the present case, even in paragraph 25 of the order dated 01.02.2016 of the 1st Respondent which pertains to the Government exempting the building from the provisions of the Development Regulation Rule 25 (c) relating to Minimum Road width etc., the same is also bereft of valid reasons being assigned thereto, relating to the grant of exemption. On this score also, the order of the 1st Respondent dated 01.02.2016 is incorrect, in the eye of Law.