This judgment disposes of a writ petition challenging a de-occupation and demolition notice issued by CMDA. The Court held that since statutory appeals were pending before the appellate authority, the writ petition was not maintainable in the interim.
Directions to dispose of pending appeal expeditiously and maintain status quo.
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 : 28.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
W.P.No.10473 of 2022 and WMP.No.10166 of 2022
M.G.Srinivasamurthy ... Petitioner -vs-
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the 2nd respondent relating to the impugned de-occupation notice issued in letter No.EC/N-II/13099/2017 dated 05.01.2022 and quash the same and further direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to take any further action.
For Petitioner :: Mr.R.Rajaram For Respondents :: Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar Special Government Pleader for R1 in all cases
Mrs.P.Veena Suresh Standing Counsel for R2 & R3
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.)
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned de-occupation notice dated 05.01.2022 issued pursuant to the locking and sealing and demolition notice dated 03.11.2021 issued by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (for short, “the CMDA”), the second respondent herein, to quash the same with a consequential direction to the respondents 2 & 3 not to take any further action till the revision, if any, filed by the petitioner is disposed of by the 1st respondent.
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai as a Commissioner to inspect all the flats and submit a report, in its order dated 17.02.2006. Accordingly, the Commissioner submitted his report certifying that there were cracks more visible in the staircases, portico and all the RCC pillars ranging from earth to terrace and the connecting cross beams were full of cracks explicitly visible. But the LIC did not carry out any repairs. Therefore, the Association again went back to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi on the inaction shown by the LIC for carrying out the work of strengthening the buildings. Finally, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in its order dated 10.01.2007, asked the Joint Registrar of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to visit the colony and submit a report. Again when the report dated 09.02.2007 was submitted to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, a direction was issued to the LIC on 02.01.2013 to carry out the work of strengthening the buildings and also imposed costs of Rs.5 lakhs. But the LIC failed to rectify the defects.
suffered by them cannot be assessed, hence, the impugned notices are liable to be set aside.
Country Planning Act and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent also informed this Court that their appeals, after receipt of the report from the CMDA, will be disposed of on merits and as per law, in the light of the averments made in paragraph-8 of the status report that at present around 2444 revision petitions have been filed and in several cases, appeals are being disposed of in compliance of the time bound orders that are being passed by this Court, we hereby direct the first respondent, namely, the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner, if any, on merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law expeditiously. If the petitioner has also moved stay application, and the authority has not taken up the said stay application, we also direct the respondents 2 & 3 and the petitioner to maintain status quo, till the said appeal is disposed of by the first respondent on merit and as per law expeditiously. We also place on record the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the second respondent in W.P.No.620/2022 that the individual applications filed under Section 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act will also be dealt with by the second respondent in the manner known to law, after the outcome of the appeals under Section 80-A, expeditiously.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
tsi
To
+1cc to Mr.D.Ashok Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No. 29584 +1cc to Mr.P.Veena Suresh, Advocate, S.R.No. 30160 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 30928
W.P.No.10473/2022
NR(CO) GN(27/05/2022)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can grant interim relief in a writ petition challenging a demolition notice while statutory appeals under Section 80-A are pending.
Whether the petitioner can simultaneously pursue writ jurisdiction and statutory appellate remedies.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
M.G.Srinivasamurthy
The Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department
The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
The Senior Planning Officer Enforcement Cell CMDA
T.RAJA
S.SOUNTHAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
