Disposed

C.T.Praveen Kumar v. The Sub Collector

Madras HC2 Feb 2017WP/2534/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge Bench of the Madras High Court allowed the writ petition regarding allegations of violation of planning permission. The court directed the authorities to conduct a site inspection within fifteen days to verify violations and inform the petitioner accordingly. The petition was disposed of after agreeing on the inspection protocol.

What did the court decide?

Directing Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to conduct a site inspection within fifteen days to identify violations and inform the petitioner, who must then remove them before further construction.

C.T.Praveen Kumar Vs The Sub Collector — Municipal and Town Planning | 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

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶7

W.P.No.2534 of 2017

¶8

and W.M.P.No.2495 of 2017 C.T.Praveen Kumar .. Petitioner -vs1.The Sub Collector, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District. 2.The Assistant Director, Office of Town & Country Planning, Town & Country Planning, Thiruvallur Zone, Thiruvallur District. 3.The Executive Officer, Ponneri Town Panchayat, Thiruvallur District. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the third respondent dated 03.01.2017 bearing Na.Ka.No.244/2016/2 and proceedings dated 05.01.2017 bearing Na.Ka.No.21/2017/Thi.Va.Ma.2 issued by the second respondent and quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Prabhakaran For Respondents : Mr.M.K.Subramanian Government Pleader * * * * *

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶13

On hearing the learned counsel for parties, it appears that the petitioner does have a planning permission. But the real allegation is of violation of the planning permission. To that extent, the notice dated 05.01.2017 may not be correctly reflecting the factual situation.

¶14

It is thus agreed that respondent Nos.2 and 3 will cause an inspection to be made at site within fifteen days from today and the petitioner will be informed of the violations, if any. The petitioner will ensure that the violations are removed and only thereafter, he will carry out any further construction. If the petitioner fails to comply with the same, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 would be within their rights to proceed to take action in accordance with law against the unauthorised construction.

¶15

The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.2495 of 2017 is closed. -s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar bbr To 1.The Sub Collector, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District. 2.The Assistant Director, Office of Town & Country Planning, Town & Country Planning, Thiruvallur Zone, Thiruvallur District.

¶16

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

¶17

3.The Executive Officer, Ponneri Town Panchayat, Thiruvallur District.

¶18

+1 cc to M/s.A.Prabhakaran Advocate sr 6615

¶19

W.P.No.2534 of 2017

¶20

ug(co)
aa07/02/2017

¶21

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

C.T.Praveen Kumar v. The Sub Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.T.Praveen Kumar v. The Sub Collector

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