“12.As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Corporation of Chennai has been delegated with the powers by the second respondent during the relevant point of time. It is an admitted fact that a valid planning permission was granted in the year 1987 to the erstwhile owner of the property. When it is not established before this Court that the grant of approval in the year 1987 is tainted with illegality, it is not open to the second respondent to assume and presume so many things in the year 2008 to question the grant of valid planning permission granted by the Corporation of Chennai. When the approval was granted in the year 1987, the legal presumption is that the same has been granted in accordance with the rules and regulations and after complying with all the formalities. To rebut that legal presumption, sufficient and cogent evidence should be produced, that too, within a reasonable period. In the present case, not only second respondent is questioning the approval granted by the Corporation of Chennai, the delegated authority, in the year 1987, after 21 years, but failed to establish their stand that all is not well in the grant of the approval in the year 1987. The second respondent cannot disassociate themselves from the granting of the Corporation in the year 1987 and contend that the Corporation is a necessary party to come before this Court to explain how it is granted the approval 21 years back.
