Dismissed

Arulmigu Kapaleeswarar Temple v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC7 Dec 2015WP/11253/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the validity of a Development Control Rule regarding security deposits for property construction by the petitioner temple. The court dismissed the petition as infructuous because the rule had been amended, rendering the challenge moot.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous; respondents restrained from invoking the old Bank Guarantee.

Arulmigu Kapaleeswarar Temple Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07.12.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

W.P.No.11253 of 2003

¶7

ARULMIGU KAPALEESWARAR TEMPLE [ PETITIONER ] REP BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶8

¶9

1 THE STATE OF TAMILNADU REP BY THE SECY TO GOVT. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT. FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI-9

¶10

2 THE CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY No.8 GANDHI IRWIN ROAD, EGOMORE, CHENNAI-600 008. [ RESPONDENTS ]

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, to declare that the provisions of Rule 19(b)(B-III) of the Development Control Rules for Chennai Metropolitan Area is ultra vires, illegal, unconstitutional and unenforceable in so far it relates to levy and collection and forfeiture of security deposit in so far as the petitioner is concerned in respect of the construction put up by the petitioner at T.S.No.3896/Part, Chamiers Road, Chennai 28.

¶12

¶13

For Petitioner .. Mrs.Usha Tholkapian For Respondents .. R.Vijayakumar -R1 Addl.Govt. Pleader

¶14

Mr.K.Raja Srinivas - R2

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶17

2. Heard Mrs.Usha Tholkapian, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, R.Vijayakumar, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.Raja Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

¶18

3.The petitioner is Arulmigu Kapaleeswarar Temple, Mylapore and in this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule 19 (b) B-III of the Development Control Rules for Chennai Metropolitan, as ultra vires, in so far as it relates to levy and collection

¶19

and forfeiture of security deposit in so far as the petitioner is concerned in respect of the construction put up by them at T.S.No.3896/Part, Chamiers Road, Chennai-28.

¶20

¶21

4.At the time when the Writ Petition was entertained, an order of interim injunction was granted on 11.04.2003 and subsequently, the interim injunction was made absolute by an order dated 12.08.2003, restraining the respondents from invoking the Bank Guarantee and the petitioner Temple was directed to keep the Bank Guarantee alive till the disposal of the Writ Petition by renewing the same.

¶22

5.It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that Rules have been amended and Bank Guarantee has been accepted by the respondent in lieu of cash payment.

¶23

6.In the light of the subsequent amendment made to the Development Control Rules, nothing survives for further adjudication and the respondent is restrained from invoking the Bank Guarantee under the old Rules and liberty is given to them to proceed in accordance with the new Rules as against the petitioner, if there is any violation, after notice all concerned.

¶24

¶25

With the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed as

¶26

infructuous. No costs.

07.12.2015

rpa

1 THE STATE OF TAMILNADU REP BY THE SECY TO GOVT. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT. FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI-9

¶31

2 THE CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY No.8 GANDHI IRWIN ROAD, EGOMORE, CHENNAI-600 008.

¶32

¶33

T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.

¶34

rpa

¶35

W.P.No.11253 of 2003

¶36

07.12.2015

Arulmigu Kapaleeswarar Temple v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arulmigu Kapaleeswarar Temple v. the State 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

Poochi Vs The District Collector

S.Ravichandran, Vs The Director

Food Corporation of India Vs The Deputy Director

Shri Lakshmi Spinners Ltd. Vs Govt of Tn. Rep by Its

Tamilnadu Tourism Development Vs the Commissioner of Labour

The Bombay Burmah Trading Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board