Disposed

G.Vaithiyalingam, v. Va.Pariyasamy

Madras HC8 Apr 2019CONT P/1487/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a contempt petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act against a Zonal Executive Engineer for alleged non-compliance. The Court found no willful disobedience by the engineer but directed the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority to expedite a pending rectification application within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority to expedite the application for rectification permission within four weeks and inform the petitioner and the appellant.

G.Vaithiyalingam, Vs Va.Pariyasamy — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 08.04.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶8

Cont.P.No.1487/2018 G.Vaithiyalingam, S/o.Late, Ganapathi Chettiar, No.7 A Raja Street, Devaraj Nagar, Saligramam, Chennai 600 093. .. Petitioner Versus Mr.Va.Periyasamy Zonal Executive Engineer Corporation of Chennai Zone No.X, No.64, NSK Salai Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. .. Respondent

¶9

Prayer:- Contempt petition filed under section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent for willful disobedience of the order of the Court dated 20.07.2017 in WP.No.18401/2017.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Chidambaram For Respondent : Mr.V.C.Selvasekaran

¶11

ORDER [Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,]

¶12

The petitioner, alleging non-compliance and willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 20.07.2017 made in WP.No.18401/2017 on the part of the respondent, came forward to file the present petition.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.C.Selvasekaran, learned Standing counsel for the respondent/contemnor and also perused the Report dated 19.03.2019 submitted by the Executive Engineer, Zonal Office-XI, Greater Chennai Corporation,

¶16

premises of the petitioner was also inspected on 09.10.2017 and found that the petitioner himself had put up an unauthorised construction in the rear side, admeasuring to a total extent of 18.69 sq.m. in three separate portions and a toilet consisting of front portion admeasuring 27

¶17

sq.m., with asbestos sheet, and the centre portion admeasuing to an extent of 38.85 sq.m. with RCC roofing and also some additional construction, for which action has been taken under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, and challenging the same, the petitioner had filed WP.No.28100/2017 and the same has been entertained and interim orders are in operation. Insofar as the 5^th respondent in the writ petition is concerned,

¶18

viz., Mr.Amardoss, action was taken and he approached the

¶19

Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development

¶20

Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9, and he was directed to make an application to obtain the planning permission in

¶21

the form of rectification of the offending construction and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

he has also given a letter dated 17.07.2018, applying for

¶23

¶24

the revised planning permission to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and also made a request, not to taken any coercive action till the disposal of the application and subsequently, Mr.Amardoss, has been issued with DeOccupation Notice dated 14.03.2019.

¶25

4 The learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶26

submit that undue indulgence has been shown to the 5^th

¶27

respondent in the writ petition, viz, Mr.Amardoss and

¶28

whereas, the petitioner has been selectively targeted and prays for appropriate orders,

¶29

5 Per contra, Mr.V.C.Selvasekaran, learned Standing

¶30

counsel appearing for the respondent/contemnor would submit

¶31

that in the light of the liberty granted by the Government,

¶32

Mr.Amardoss/5^th respondent in the writ petition, has

¶33

submitted an application for rectification to CMDA and the same is pending.

¶34

circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no

¶35

willful disobedience for non-compliance of the order has

¶36

been made out by the respondent/contemnor. However, taking

¶37

into consideration the contents of the Report dated

¶38

19.03.2019, this Court directs the Chennai Metropolitan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶39

Development Authority to expedite the process of the

¶40

¶41

application dated 17.07.2018 submitted by Mr.Amardoss/5^th

¶42

respondent in the writ petition, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible

¶43

and preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and inform the decision taken to the petitioner as well as to Mr.Amardoss/5^th respondent in the writ petition.

¶44

from 25^th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶45

Ps/24/04/2019

¶46

¶47

The Zonal Executive Engineer Corporation of Chennai, Zone No.X, No.64, NSK Salai Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024.

¶48

Copy to:-

¶49

The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶50

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

G.Vaithiyalingam, v. Va.Pariyasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Vaithiyalingam, v. Va.Pariyasamy

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

Sheik Dawood @ Dawood, Vs State Rep. by

Mohamed Rafi Ayub Vs the Superintendent of Police

Velu Vs the State Rep by Its

Ravi Vs the Superintendent of Police

Raja Vs the State Rep by Its

K.Radha Krishnan Vs the Superintendent of Police