Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In the meanwhile on 20.07.2002 I sent my objections to CMDA not to issue planning permission in the above said 4.76 acres of land, till the disposal of W.P.No.12613/01.
I filed a writ petition in W.P.No.16346/07 against 1. CMDA 2.M/s.Sri Krishna Tiles 3.M/s.Ozone Constructions (P) Ltd. on 02.05.07 the Hon'ble High Court granted interim injunction against CMDA and others for not to give planning permission in the above said 4.76 acres of land. Moreover on 28.06.07 the Hon'ble High Court has ordered in W.P.No.16346/07 that CMDA to consider my objections dated 20.07.2002 within 4 weeks and also give a fresh objections within a week. I had given my objections on 16.07.2007 In this situation the then CMDA member secretary had sent a letter dated 16.06.2008 on 20.05.2008 to the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department. In that letter, he had not mentioned about the issue with regard to giving permission to M/s.Ozone Projects (P) Ltd. And concealed my objections and the above mentioned pending cases. The CMDA Member Secretary had willfully omitted to state my objections even after the order of the Hon'ble High Court.
I state that by suppressing the real state of affairs to the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, the then Member Secretary, CMDA attempted to get planning permission in favour of M/s.Ozone Projects Private Limited.
This act by abusing his position as a public servant and obtaining a valuable thing i.e. Planning Permission in favour of M/s.Ozone Projects Private Limited is punishable u/s 13(1) (d) (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
I understand apart from Mr.Mohan the then Member Secretary, other officials in collusion with M/s.Ozone Projects Private Limited are involved in the said offence.
.....
11. The perusal of the CMDA files disclosed that the planning permission file of M/s. Ozone Project Private Limited was processed by the Planning Assistant, the Assistant Planner, the Deputy planner and the Chief planner before circulating to the Member Secretary, the Vice Chairman and Multi Storied Building Panel. The members of the MSB panel convened a meeting on 30.04.2008 and passed a resolution recommending the planning approval for Ozone Projects Pvt Ltd. They also obtained opinion from the Senior Legal Officer, CMDA on 08.04.2008 and he gave opinion that the documents produced by M/s. Ozone Projects (P) Limited is fit for planning permission approval. A.O.Tr.Mohan, I.A.S. Member Secretary forwarded the file to the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai along with the recommendation of the MSB panel on 20.05.2008. Before the recommendation, the objection filed by Tr.Balakrishnan @ Parthi Baskar was considered on 05.09.2007. However, the reply for the rejection of the objection was only given on 08.09.2008, after the recommendation of the planning approval of M/s. Ozone constructions pvt limited.

16. We are of the considered view that a deliberate attempt stands made to bypass the orders of this court by resorting to the course adopted. We would hold the second respondent guilty of contempt of court. The first respondent shall stand discharged. We merely may observe that Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel had made oral submissions on behalf of the intending intervenor M/s.Ozone Projects (P) Ltd in Sub A.No.191/2013 which stands not admitted and will now stand dismissed. It is necessary to set right the wrong that has resulted owing to the wilful disobedience of the orders of this court by the second respondent. Therefore, a direction is issued to the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, to cause registration of a case in respect of the wrong doings in obtaining approval for M/s.Ozone Projects (P) Ltd. It is expected that a fair and just investigation would follow both regards Mr.M.R.Mohan and also such others as may be involved in the wrong doing. Even while holding the second respondent guilty of contempt, we would, considering the representation that imposition of any sentence would have very grave consequences on his career prospects and expressing the fond hope that such contemptuous conduct will not be repeated, we would accept his apology and accordingly choose not to punish him. Connected sub applications are closed.