Disposed

M.I.E.T. Engineering College, v. Director of Twon and Country

Madras HC10 Sept 2014WP(MD)/14712/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench disposed of a writ petition challenging notices under the Town and Country Planning Act regarding infrastructure charges. Following a Division Bench order, the Single Judge directed authorities to treat the notice as a show cause notice, permit the petitioner to respond, and maintain the status quo of unsealed buildings pending final orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit reply within 15 days; show cause notice to be treated as such; status quo maintained regarding building seals; reasoned orders to be passed within 30 days.

M.I.E.T. Engineering College, Vs Director of Twon… — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.09.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.14712 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014

¶7

M.I.E.T. ENGINEERING COLLEGE,

¶8

REPRESENTATED BY ITS CHARIMAN, MOHAMMED INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY (MIET) SOCIETY, TIRCHY PUDUKOTTAI MAIN ROAD, TRICHY- 620 007.

¶9

.. Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-002.

¶12

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF

¶13

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, SIVAGANGAI REGION, 430, GANDHI STREET, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT 630 561.

¶14

THE PRESIDENT, KUMARAMANGALAM PANCHAYAT, KULATHUR TALUK, PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT- 624 515. .. Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent dated 2.12.2013 made in Na.Ka.No.2442/2013 cma 3 and to quash the same and further forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from making any demand whatsoever under the Tamil Nadu Town and country planning Act and Tamilnadu Town and country planning (Levy of infrastructure and Amenities charges) Rules 2008 pertaining to the building permission No.19/2003-04, dated 24.03.2004 granted by the 3rd Respondent to the petitioner.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.Muthu Geethaiyan

¶17

for Mr.M.Palani

¶18

For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Govindan Special Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.Aairam K.Selvakumar Government Advocate

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner College has challenged the notice issued by the respondent dated 02.12.2013 under the Provisions of Sections 56(1)(a), 56 (1)(b), 56(2-A) and 57 of the amended Town and Country Planning Act, as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ amended in 2008.

¶21

¶22

Though the petitioner college raised several several grounds in the writ petition, it is seen that identical matters were heard by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos.16597 of 2013 and 1358 of 2014 and the Division Bench by order dated 06.02.2014 disposed of the writ petitions by issuing the following directions:-

¶23

“4. We have considered the above submissions. The challenge in these writ petitions is only notices. We clarify that the impugned proceedings should be treated as show cause notices and the petitioners in each case will be entitled to submit their reply/explanation to the said notices, including the plea of jurisdiction, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the authority will consider such replies submitted by the petitioners and pass reasoned orders, on merits and take appropriate steps thereafter, in accordance with law. It is needless to state that no adverse action shall be taken before passing final orders.”

¶24

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 contended that there are three categories of approval to be obtained by the petitioner before construction of the building apart from payment of infrastructural development charges. Further it is submitted that prior to submission of building plan approval, appropriate approval has to be obtained for conversion and such approval has to be granted by the respondent.

¶25

The petitioner's contention in the writ petition is that they have obtained building plan approval from the Panchayat viz., the third respondent and they have constructed the building and by virtue of the subsequent amendment the petitioner cannot be now directed to obtain approval from other authorities as per the amended provisions. In any event the impugned proceeding is only a notice and therefore, the petitioner should be permitted to raise all contentions before the authority by placing their objections in writing.

¶26

Thus, by following the earlier order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court referred supra, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to treat the impugned notice as show cause notice and submit their reply/explanation to the said notice including the plea of jurisdiction within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the second respondent shall consider the petitioners' reply/explanation and pass reasoned orders and take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

¶27

It is submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that already the administrative block of the petitioner's institution has been sealed by the respondents. In such circumstances, the seal with regard to the administrative block shall remain as such and if the other buildings using as class rooms and hostels, if they are not sealed as on date, it shall not be sealed and status quo as on date shall be maintained till final orders passed by the second respondent after receipt of the petitioners' reply/explanation. Final orders shall be passed by the second respondent within thirty days from the date of receipt of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reply/explanation.

¶28

¶29

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar /True copy/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

To 1. DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-002. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, SIVAGANGAI REGION, 430, GANDHI STREET, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT 630 561. 3. THE PRESIDENT, KUMARAMANGALAM PANCHAYAT, KULATHUR TALUK, PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT- 624 515. +1CC to Mr.M.Palani, Advocate in SR.50886 W.P.(MD)No.14712 of 2014 10.09.2014

¶32

rj2 pbk 11/09/2014 ::3p-5c:(IT)

¶33

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

M.I.E.T. Engineering College, v. Director of Twon and Country

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.I.E.T. Engineering College, v. Director of Twon and Country

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Kavitha Vs State Represented by

M.Jeevanandam Poosari, Vs the District Collector

M. Arumugam Vs the Superintendnet of

A. Ponnusamy, Vs the Registrar

M.Balamurugan Vs the Home Secretary

Thamayanthi Vs the District Revenue Officer