Allowed

Marina Square Flat Owners v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC2 Feb 2017WP/14022/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition quashing an order of remittal to the CMDA made by an appellate authority that also participated in a prior Monitoring Committee scrutiny. The court set aside the order as improper due to the officer's prior involvement and remitted the matter for fresh consideration by a new officer.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 05.04.2016 was set aside, and the matter remitted for fresh consideration by a newly nominated officer within 15 days.

Marina Square Flat Owners Vs The State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02.02.2017

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶5

W.P.No.14022 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.12255 of 2016

¶6

Marina Square Flat Owners Association, Rep. by its President. ... Petitioner -Vs-

¶7

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

¶8

The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep. by its Member Secretary, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-8.

¶9

The Corporation of Chennai Rep. by its Commissioner, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-3.

¶10

Ferdous Estates Private Ltd. Rep. by its Director, Mrs.Ferdous.

¶11

Ferdous Management Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director.

¶12

M.M.Haneefa 7. Ferdous ... Respondents

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent in Letter No.8075/UDI/2015-12 dated 5.4.2016, quash the same and direct the 1st respondent not to hear and proceed with the said Appeal.

¶14

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

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Mohan M/s.K.Sumathi

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.R.Vijayakumar Additional Government Pleader For R-1

¶17

: Mr.N.Sampath for R-2

¶18

: Mr.G.Anantha Rangan or R-3

¶19

: No appearance for R-4 : Mr.S.R.Rajagopal for Mr.B.Jeevan Kumar for RR 5 to 7

¶20

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

¶21

The dispute has had a chequered history. The challenge laid in this petition is to the order dated 05.04.2016 of the appellate authority post the double scrutiny by the Monitoring Committee. In terms of this order, the matter has been remitted to the CMDA.

¶22

2.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. But, a detailed examination is not necessary as the impugned order is not sustainable on a short ground. The appellate authority, at the second stage of the matter being remitted to the Monitoring Committee, participated in the proceedings and has signed the Minutes (unlike the first scrutiny by the Monitoring Committee). The same officer, thus, cannot be a party to the Monitoring Committee recommendations which are in favour of the view of the petitioner and then, sit as an appellate authority to remit the matter to CMDA. This position cannot really be disputed by any of the learned counsel for the parties before us.

¶23

3.The result of the aforesaid is that the order dated 05.04.2016 and any steps which may have been taken in pursuance thereto are set aside and the matter is remitted back for fresh consideration by the appellate authority post the stage of the second report of the Monitoring Committee dated 03.02.2016.

¶24

4.We are of the view that it would be appropriate for the Chief Secretary to nominate the Officer who would now hear the appeal in this regard. The needful be done within fifteen (15) days of the receipt of the order. The appellate authority would, then, endeavour to conclude the proceedings at the earliest, but not later than three (3) months from the date of appointment.

¶25

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

¶26

5.We, however, make it clear that the fact that the appellate authority has to re-hear the matter will not amount to a licence to the occupants to carry on non-residential activity since the regularisation has been claimed on the basis that the flats will be used for residential purpose.

¶27

Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.12255 of 2016 is closed.

¶28

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sra
To
1. The Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu,
Housing and Urban Development Dept.,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai-8.
3. The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai
Ripon Buildings, Chennai-3.
+1cc to Mr.N.Sampath, Advocate, S.R.No.6787
+1cc to Mr.G.Anantha Rangan, Advocate, S.R.No.6777
+1cc to Mr.B.Jeevan Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.7160
+2cc's to M/s.K.Sumathi, Advocate, S.R.No.7020
+1cc to M/s.Hemalatha, Advocate, S.R.No.6912
W.P.No.14022 of 2016
MG(CO)
CA(13/02/2017)

¶29

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

Marina Square Flat Owners v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marina Square Flat Owners 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

M/S Goyal Gases Priveate Vs M/S Sbq Steels Limited

Rangarajan Narasimhan, Vs The Director

Rangarajan Narasimhan, Vs The Director

Dr.Nasreen Ahmed Vs The Member Secretary

Marina Square Flat Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Smt.a.Vanishree Vs the Member Secretary