Writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking quashing of a permission granted by the Block Development Officer and directions for an enquiry. The Court held that since an effective alternative remedy existed under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, the writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.07.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.P.No.20847 of 2019 and WMP No.20058 of 2019
T.A.Shanmugam ... Petitioner
Vs
1 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by Secretary to Government, Department of Education, Fort St. George, Chennai 9
2 The District Collector, District Collectorate Campus, Salem District 636 001
3 The Chief Education Officer, District Collectorate Campus, Salem District 636 001.
4 Mrs.Manimegalai Block Development Officer, Tholasampatti, Omalur Taluk, Salem District.
5 The Correspondent Sivagamiammal - Subramaniam Nursery and Primary School Tholasampatti Omalur Taluk, Salem District ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 4th respondent bearing Na. Ka. No. 1/20172018 dated 1.2.2018 accordingly quash the same as non est in the eye of law and consequently direct the 3rd respondent herein to conduct a proper and detailed inspection / enquiry in respect of the 5th respondent School and to submit the enquiry report in a sealed cover within a time frame that may be stipulated by
this Honourable Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Rajasekar
For Respondents: Mr.E.Manoharan, (for R1 and R2) Additional Govt. Pleader Mr.K.Karthikeyan (For R3) Govt. Advocate (Edn.)
O R D E R
(Order of this Court was made by S.Manikumar, J.)
Contending inter alia that petitioner is a social activist, instant writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the Block Development Officer, Tholasampatti, Omalur Taluk, Salem District, the 4th respondent bearing R.C.No.1/2017-2018 dated 1.2.2018 and to quash the same as non est in the eye of law.
XkY}h; Cuhl;rp xd;wpak; bjhsrk;gl;o Cuhl;rp kd;w jdp mYtyh ;- tl;lhu tsh;r;rp mYtyh; (fp.C) XkY}h;mth;fspd; eltof;iffs; Kd;dpiy. jpUkjp.P.kzpnkfiy
e.f.vz;. 1-2017-2018 ehs;.1.2.2018 bghUs;: fl;ol chpk;k; - XkY}h; Cuhl;rp xd;wpak;
bjhsrk;gl;o Cuhl;rp - bjhsrk;gl;o fpuhk rh;nt vz;.30-9B y;8-2009-2010d;go jpU.A.Rg;ukzpak; j-bg jpU.mh;j;jdhhp vd;gth; rptfhkp mk;khs; Rg;ukzpak; kHiyah; kw;wk; bjhlf;fg;gs;spf; fl;olk; fl;l chpkk; tH';fp cj;jput[ tH';Fjy; bjhlh;ghf.
jfty;; : jpU. A .Rg;ukzpak; j-bg jpU.mh;j;jdhhp vd;gthpd; tpz;zg;gk; ehs; 22.01.2018
..................
cj;jput[.
XkY}h; Cuhl;rp xd;wpak;/ bjhsrk;gl;o Cuhl;rp - bjhsrk;gl;o fpuhkj;jpy; trpf;Fk;/ jpU.A .Rg;ukzpak; j_bg jpU.mh;j;jdhhp vd;gth; rptfhkp mk;khs; Rg;ukzpak; kHiyah; kw;wk; bjhlf;fg;gs;spf; fl;olk; fl;l bfhLj;Js;s tiu glj;jpy; fz;Ls;s nkw;go fpuhk rh;nt vz;.30_9By;8_2009-2010d;go g[jpa Mh;.rp.rp jiujsk; fl;olk; fl;of;bfhs;tjw;F efh;g[wk; kw;Wk; fpuhk mikg;g[ jpl;lk; 1970 goa[k;/ jkpH;ehL Cuhl;rp fl;ol tpjpfs; 1994-d; goa[k; fPH;f;fz;l epge;jidfSf;F cl;gl;L fl;olk; fl;of;bfhs;s chpkk; tH';fg;gLfpwJ.
epge;jidfs;
,t;tYtyfj;jpw;F bjhptpj;J tPl;L thp urPJ bgw;Wf;bfhs;s ntz;Lk;.
,izg;g[ : tiugl';fs;
Sd/Special Officer / Block Development Officer jdp mYtyh; bjhsrk;gl;o Cuhl;rp XkY}h; Cuhl;rp xd;wpak;.
bgWjy;
jpU.A.Rg;ukzpak; j-bg jpU.mh;j;jdhhp bjhsrk;gl;o Cuhl;rp/ bjhsrk;gl;o fpuhkk;/ XkY}h; tl;lk;/
nryk; khtl;lk;.
(2) The appropriate planning authority shall, in deciding whether to grant or
refuse such permission, have regard to the following matters, namely:-
(a) the purpose for which the permission is required;
(b) the suitability of the place for such purpose;
(c) the future development and maintenance of the planning area
(3) When the appropriate planning authority refuses to grant a permission to any person, it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and
furnish to that person, on demand, a brief statement of the same.
(2) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be preferred within two months from the date on which the decision or order was communicated to him in the manner prescribed, but the prescribed authority may admit an appeal preferred after the said period of two months if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the said period.
(3) In disposing of an appeal, the prescribed authority may, after giving the parties an opportunity of making their representations, pass such order thereon as the prescribed authority may deem fit.
(4) The decision or order of he prescribed authority on such appeal shall be final.
(5) The prescribed authority may pass such interlocutory orders pending the decision on such appeal as the prescribed authority may deem fit.
(6) The prescribed authority may award costs in proceedings under this section to be paid either out of the Fund Account or by such party to such appeal as the prescribed authority may deem fit.
may pass orders accordingly:
Provided that every application to the Director or the Government for the exercise of the powers under this section shall be preferred within three months from the date on which the proceeding, decision or order to which the application relates was communicated to the applicant.
(2) No order prejudicial to any party shall be passed under sub-section (1), unless such party has been given an opportunity of making his representations.
(3) The Director or the Government, as the case may be, may suspend the execution of the decision or order pending the exercise of his or their power under
sub-section (1) in respect thereof.
(4) The Director or the Government may award costs in proceedings under this section to be paid either out of the Fund Account or by such party to the application for revision as the Director or the Government may deem fit.
80-A. Special Powers of Government.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 80, the Government may, on application, call for and examine the records of the appropriate planning authority in respect of sealing of the premises under sub-section (2-A) of section 56 or under section (4) of section 57 and if, in any case, it appears to the Government that any such action or decision should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, they may pass orders accordingly.
Provided that every application to the Government for the exercise of the powers under this section shall be preferred within thirty days from the date of sealing.
Provided further that such application for revision shall be disposed of by the Government within ninety days from the date of receipt of the application.
(2) No order prejudicial to any person shall be passed under sub-section (1) unless such person has been given an opportunity of making his representation.
(3) The Government may pass such interim order, as they deem fit, pending the exercise of the powers under sub-section (1) in respect thereof.
review of any order passed under sections 76 to 78 and 80, on the basis of the discovery of new and important facts which, after the exercise of due diligence, were not then within his knowledge or could not be produced by him when the order was made, or on the basis of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason:
Provided that no application for review shall be presented more than once in respect of the same order.
(2) Every application for review shall be
presented within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) The decision or order passed on the application for review shall be final.
(4) The authority competent to pass orders on the application for review may pass such interlocutory orders pending the decision on the application for review as it may deem fit.
(5) The authority referred to in sub-section (4) may award costs in proceedings under this section to be paid either out of the Fund Account or by such party to the application for review as it may deem fit.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ars
To
1 The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Education, Fort St. George, Chennai 9
2 The District Collector, District Collectorate Campus, Salem District 636 001
3 The Chief Education Officer, District Collectorate Campus, Salem District 636 001.
4 Block Development Officer, Tholasampatti, Omalur Taluk, Salem District.
+1cc to Mr.V.Rajasekar, Advocate, S.R.No. 60080 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 60745
W.P.No.20847 of 2019 and WMP No.20058 of 2019
KS(CO) GN(14/08/2019)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an alternative remedy under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 precludes the High Court from entertaining a writ petition under Article 226.
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when the applicant is a social activist and the permission granted is challenged as non est.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
T.A.Shanmugam
State of Tamil Nadu
District Collector, Salem District
Chief Education Officer, Salem District
Block Development Officer, Tholasampatti
Correspondent Sivagamiammal - Subramaniam Nursery and Primary School
S.Manikumar
Subramaniam Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
