Disposed

M/S.Tarulata M.Rupani v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC9 Jun 2014WP/14597/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order passed by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority regarding unauthorized construction. The Court directed the Government of Tamil Nadu to decide the pending statutory appeal on merits within eight weeks and maintained status quo.

What did the court decide?

Direction to carry first respondent to consider the appeal and dispose of it within eight weeks, along with direction to second respondent to maintain status quo.

M/S.Tarulata M.Rupani Vs the Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 09.06.2014

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr.SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶5

The Honourable Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH

¶6

Writ Petition No.14597 of 2014 & M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶7

Mrs.Tarulata M.Rupani, Rep. by her Power of Attorney Agent M/s Rainbow Foundations Limited, By its Managing Director Anopchand Jain, having registered office at No.4, Thanikachalam Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Enforcement Cell (North-Central), No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. .. Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent herein to dispose of the miscellaneous petition along with the Appeal filed by the petitioner herein with the 1st respondent as per the acknowledgment issued by its office on 27.05.2014 as provided under Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 as against the order passed by the second respondent in Letter No. B3/3529/2013 dated 12.05.2014 and thereby directing the first respondent to consider the appeal submitted by the petitioner on 27.05.2014 for regularizing the construction put up by the petitioner on the property situate at Door No.38, presently Door No.24, Barnaby Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010, in accordance with the revised plan submitted to the second respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and various circulars, office

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

orders of respondents 1 and 2 herein in accordance with law.

¶11

For petitioner : Mr.R.Thiagarajan

¶12

For respondents: Mr.P.S.Shivashanmughasundaram, Special Government Pleader for R1

¶13

Mr.Raja Srinivas for R2

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the the first respondent to dispose of the appeal along with stay petition filed by the petitioner under Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, as against the order passed by the second respondent dated 12.05.2014.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as against the order passed by the second respondent dated 12.05.2014, a statutory appeal has been filed under Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, along with stay petition. However, notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal, the second respondent has resorted to proceed with the demolition by taking coercive steps. Therefore, appropriate orders will have to be passed. The learned counsel has made reliance upon the order passed in W.P.Nos.5800 to 5087 of 2013 dated 07.03.2013.

¶17

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the violation made by the petitioner is huge. The construction has been made in the year 2011. Therefore, no discretion will have to be exercised. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in W.P.No.17460 of 2013 dated 12.07.2013.

¶18

We are not willing to go into the merits of the case. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed an appeal, which is statutory in nature. The said appeal is pending consideration with the first respondent. In such view of the matter, without expressing anything on merits, we direct the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the appeal dated 27.05.2014 filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the second respondent on 12.05.2014.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, with regard to the objections made by the second respondent, we deem it fit to direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

view of the said direction, we direct the second respondent to maintain status quo till final order is passed by the first respondent.

¶22

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Asst.Registrar(CO) 23.6.2014

¶25

True Copy
Sub Asst.Registrar
raa
To
1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Housing and Urban Development,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Member Secretary,Chennai Metropolitan Development
Authority,
Enforcement Cell (North-Central),
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
+2ccs to Mr.R.Thiagarajan, Advocate Sr 23981
+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 23587
VD(CO)
km/24.6.
W.P. No.14597 of 2014
& M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S.Tarulata M.Rupani v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Tarulata M.Rupani v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dravida Munnettra Kazhagam, Vs the Chief Election

S.Vijayalakshmi, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

All India Anna Dravida Vs the Chief Election

D.R.Duraiarasu Vs the District Collector

B.Chowdri Vs K.Chellamuthu IAS

M/S. Jai Vishnu Clothing, Vs the Union of India