Dismissed

Ganapathy Vyaabaarigal v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC10 Mar 2015WP/1688/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public interest litigation seeking writ of mandamus for regularisation of unauthorised constructions dismissed. No law exists for such regularisation. Petitioner cannot claim parity due to non-implementation of Section 113-B following the striking down of Section 113-A.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to move competent authority individually if law permits; PIL dismissed.

Ganapathy Vyaabaarigal Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated: 10.03.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

The Honourable Mr. SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, Chief Justice and

¶5

The Honourable Mr. Justice M.M. SUNDRESH

¶6

Writ Petition No. 1688 of 2007

¶7

Ganapthy Vyaabaarigal Sangam
rep. by its President Thiru.S.S.Selvaraj
250, Sanganoor Main Road
J.A.S. Maligai Maadi, Opp. Roots, Ganapathy
Coimbatore – 6. ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by the Secretary
Municipal Administration & Water Supply
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by the Secretary
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶8

The Joint Director Local Planning Authority Tatabad, Coimbatore – 641012. 4. The Commissioner Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Coimbatore – 641001. ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to implement the provisions of Section 113-B of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and Section 283-A of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981 and the regularisation scheme framed thereunder.

¶10

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

¶11

For Petitioner : Ms. P.T. Asha for M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates For Respondents : Mr. S.T.S. Murthi Govt. Pleader for R1 & R2 No Appearance for R3 & R4.

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

(Made by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice)

¶14

We are not inclined to entertain the public interest litigation on account of the fact that there is no law, which is shown to us, by which the unauthorised construction is required to be regularised. The petitioner cannot claim parity on this ground in Coimbatore City on account of the existence of provisions of Section 113-B of the Town and Country Planning Act, as the learned Government Pleader states that Section 113-A of the said Act has in fact been struck down as unconstitutional and as a sequitur thereto, Section 113-B has not been implemented.

¶15

We are of the view that if there are any individual affected parties and law permits to seek regularisation, they would be entitled to move the competent authority in accordance with law for the same.

¶16

The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy//

¶17

Sub Assistant Registrar ATR

¶18

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

¶19

Copies to;

¶20

The Secretary
State of Tamil Nadu
Municipal Administration & Water Supply
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Secretary
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
3. The Joint Director
Local Planning Authority
Tatabad, Coimbatore – 641012.
4. The Commissioner
Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation
Coimbatore – 641001.
+1cc to Mr.Sarvabhauman Associates, Advocate, S.R.No.13348
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.13413
W.P. No. 1688 of 2007
GGK(CO)
CA(20/03/2015)

¶21

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

Ganapathy Vyaabaarigal v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganapathy Vyaabaarigal 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

Vs

Vs

Vs

Ms.Vidya Raja Vs M/S.Central Institute of

Ms.Vidya Raja Vs M/S.Central Institute of

Shamnad Basheer, Minisy of Hrd Vs Union of India