Dismissed

K.M.Sadhanandh v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC5 Dec 2014WP/31854/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the petitioner sought a writ under Article 226 directing the Tamil Nadu government to improve town planning implementation by involving professionals. The court held that rising administration matters are within the Executive's domain and refused to issue general directions.

What did the court decide?

None granted. Petition disposed of with observations urging the State to consider suggestions for better town planning.

K.M.Sadhanandh Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.12.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND The Hon'ble MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

¶5

W.P.No.31854 of 2014

¶6

K.M.Sadhanandh ...Petitioner vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary to Govt., Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MA.1) Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai. 2. The Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶7

The Member-Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan and Development Authority, Thalamuthu-Natarajan Building, 1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai. 4. The Director, Directorate of Town & Country Planning, 807, Anna Salai, Chennai. 5. The Commissioner, Commissionerate of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai. ...Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to establish a proper and efficient system for effective implementation of Town Planning Administration in granting Planning Permission and Building Permits in the entire State of Tamil Nadu, by involving registered professionals like Architects, Engineers, Town Planners, Structural Engineers, Geotechnical Engineers, Builders / owners / Constructors, etc., and also bringing in necessary Statutes for the

¶9

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

¶10

relevant professionals for the purpose of effective Town Planning Management which involves planning, designing, approval and construction activities so as to avoid unstructured and unauthorized development resulting in unfortunate and untoward incidents.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Sadhanandh Party-in-person

¶12

For Respondents

¶13

: Mr.S.T.S.Moorthy, Govt. Pleader, for RR-1, 2, 4 & 5

¶14

: Mr.C.Johnson for R-3

¶15

O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶16

The petitioner, through this Public Interest Litigation, seeks to raise the issue of a more effective implementation of Town Planning Administration in granting building permits in the State of Tamil Nadu by involving stake holders like Architects, Engineers, Town Planners, as also to bring in necessary law for the purposes. The petitioner claims to be an expert in the field, who has worked for the last 25 years. The objective, which the petitioner has in mind, cannot brook two opinions. The question, however, remains as to how all this needs to be implemented.

¶17

2.The issues raised by the petitioner are purely within the administrative domain. In the constitution scheme of separation of powers, it is the Administration, which looks into these aspects. The Court cannot legislate or look after the day-to-day administration, but only enforce law, which has been made. The petitioner really seeks improved administration and creation of law, for which, in a democratic polity like ours, the citizens elect their Government.

¶18

3.We are of the view that such general directions really are incapable of implementation, though we agree that, considering the urban mess, much greater attention is required towards the issues raised by the petitioner. We can only hope that the State of Tamil Nadu would look into the suggestions made by the petitioner and have their experts body to ensure that there is better town planning and development of urban areas.

¶19

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

¶20

4.We, thus, dispose of the writ petition with the aforesaid observations. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

sra

¶26

To
1. The Secretary to Govt.,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Municipal Administration and Water
Supply (MA.1) Dept.,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2. The Secretary to Government,
Housing & Urban Development Dept.,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
3. The Member-Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan and Development
Authority, Thalamuthu-Natarajan
Building, 1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai.
4. The Director,
Directorate of Town & Country Planning,
807, Anna Salai, Chennai.
5. The Commissioner,
Commissionerate of Municipal Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai.
6. The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of Tamilnadu, Fort St. George,
Chennai.
1 CC to Mr.K.M.Sadhanandh, Advocate SR.No. 59814

¶27

W.P.No.31854 of 2014

¶28

TEJ (CO) PSI (19.12.2014)

¶29

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

K.M.Sadhanandh v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.Sadhanandh v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

Mrs. K. Rajini Vs Mrs. Sridevi Nagaraj

Aircel Cellular Ltd. Vs Sandeep Venugopal

M/S. Flyways Vs Alm Leather Exports

M.Karthigeyan Vs The District Collector

Advocate M.Palanimuthu Vs The Union of India

M/S. National Insurance Co. Vs Mr. G. Ramesh Kumar