Disposed

Vanavil Arts & Science College v. The Commissioner

Madras HC22 Jul 2015WP/21987/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice to seal the petitioner's building due to lack of an approved plan. The second respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass a reasoned order within a week, maintaining the status quo.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vanavil Arts & Science College Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22/7/2015

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL

¶7

W.P. No.21987 of 2015
and
M.P. No.1 of 2015
Vanavil Arts & Science College
rep. By its Chairman
Mr.D.Devaraj
Thirialam Village
Jolarpet Panchayat Union
vellore District. .. Petitioner
Vs
1. The Commissioner
Directorate of Town & Country Planning
Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002.
2. The Deputy Director
Office of the Deputy Director of Town &
Country Planning
Vellore Region
Vellore & District.
3. The President
Thirialam Village Panchayat
Jolarpet Panchayat Union
Vellore District. ..Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari, calling for the records in respect of the impugned order issued by the second respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.625/2011/Ve.Ma-3 dated 16/2/2015 and quash the same.

¶9

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

¶10

For petitioner ... Mr. R.Suresh Kumar For respondents ... Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram

¶11

... Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram Special Government Pleader for R.R.1 and 2.

¶12

Mr.R.Rajeswaran Special Government Pleader for R.3.

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

(Order of the Court was made by SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.)

¶15

Mr. P.S. Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. R. Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice for the third respondent. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up final disposal, at the admission stage itself.

¶16

This writ petition is filed challenging the notice dated 16^th February, 2015, issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.625/2011, stating that in spite of opportunity having been given, the petitioner institution has not obtained the approved plan and therefore, the building in question will be locked and sealed.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner institution is having approved plan granted by the competent authority/local body and based on the approved plan only, the buildings were constructed prior to 2010. The learned counsel relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in The District Collector and Others vs. Danial Thangaraj and another¹ as well as the order of a learned Single Judge in Apesh Construction Ltd. vs. The Corporation of Madurai² and an unreported judgment dated 15.06.2012 passed in W.P. No.11031 of 2011, in support of his contentions.

¶18

In view of the contention of the petitioner/educational institution that it has obtained the approved plan from the competent local authority and the buildings were constructed as per the approved plan, it is open to the petitioner/educational institution to submit its objections/representation qua the impugned notice dated 16^th February, 2015. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already submitted a representation dated 19^th June, 2015.

¶19

1 2013 WLR 925

¶20

2 2013 (2) CTC 180

¶21

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

¶22

In such view of the matter, the second respondent shall consider the petitioner's aforestated representation dated 19^th June, 2015 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and on merits, within a period of one week. Needless to state that each and every submission averred by the petitioner in its representation is to be adverted to and a reasoned order is required to be passed. Further, it is made clear that while considering the petitioner's representation, the authorities are at liberty to examine as to whether the said local authority had competence to grant approval prior to 2010 also. Till fresh orders are passed by the second respondent, as stated supra, status quo as obtained today, in respect of the building of the petitioner/educational institution, shall be maintained by both the parties.

¶23

This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶24

-sd-
Assistant Registrar
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Commissioner
Directorate of Town & Country Planning
Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002.
2. The Deputy Director
Office of the Deputy Director of Town &
Country Planning
Vellore Region
Vellore & District.
3. The President
Thirialam Village Panchayat
Jolarpet Panchayat Union
Vellore District.
+1cc to Mr.R.Sureshkumar, Advocate (SR.37007)
+2cc to Government pleader (SR.37620 &37626))
KK(CO)
cp 04.08.2015
w.p.nO.21987 OF 2015

¶25

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

Vanavil Arts & Science College v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vanavil Arts & Science College v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Ramu Vs The Director of Municipal

Vnr Infrastructure Ltd, Rep by Vs The Assistant Commisisoner(Ct)

Vivek Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

R.Arumugham Vs The Commissioner

R.Nagarajan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

P.Sekar Vs Revenue Divisional Officer