Disposed

M/s.Instar Foods v. Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC17 Nov 2022WP/30585/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court issued a writ of mandamus restraining the 2nd respondent (CMDA) from locking, sealing, or demolishing a specific building pending final determination of a Special Revision application. The Court directed the 1st respondent TNH&UD Dept to dispose of that application within 90 days.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus restraining the 2nd respondent from interfering with the building; 1st respondent to dispose of Special Revision within 90 days.

M/s.Instar Foods Vs Government of Tamil Nadu — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.30585 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17.11.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶7

W.P.No.30585 of 2022

¶8

and

¶9

W.M.P.No.30015 of 2022

¶10

M/s.Instar Foods, Rep. by its Manager, S.Aditya, having registered Office at SP-7A, Guindy Industrial Estate, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai – 600 032. `

¶11

...Petitioner

¶12

Vs.

¶13

1.Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep. by its Member Secretary, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶14

3.P.C.Shyam Sundar ...Respondents

¶15

1/6

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.No.30585 of 2022

¶18

Prayer

¶19

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to forbear them from in anyway interfering with the building put up at Old Door No.8, New Door No.14, Karpagambal Nagar Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004 particularly by way of locking and sealing and or demolition in so far as the first floor of the aforesaid building is concerned, pending final determination of the Special Revision application dated 11.11.2022 by the 1^st respondent under Section 80(A) and 80(A)(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 within the statutory prescribed period.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.D.S.Rajasekarn

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.Vaduvelu Deenadayalan, Additional Government Pleader for R1

¶22

Mr.C.N.Vinobha, Standing Counsel for R2

¶23

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

(Order of the Court was made by K.KUMARESH BABU,J. )

¶26

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus to

¶27

forbear the 2^nd respondent from in anyway interfering with the building put

¶28

up at Old Door No.8, New Door No.14, Karpagambal Nagar Road,

¶29

2/6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.No.30585 of 2022

¶32

Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004, by way of locking and sealing or demolition, in so far as the first floor of the aforesaid building is concerned, pending final determination of the Special Revision application dated 11.11.2022.

¶33

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner originally obtained planning permission in the year 1992 and has been occupying the building since then. Since there is a violation, the 2^nd respondent had initiated enforcement action to bring the building in accordance with the planning permission. Being aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has preferred a special revision under Section 80 of the Town and Country Planning Act.

¶34

3. This Court, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, directs the 1^st respondent to dispose of the special revision filed by the petitioner under Section 80A of the Town and Country Planning Act dated 11.11.2022 within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the 2^nd respondent shall not take any coercive steps against the building in question.

¶35

3/6

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.No.30585 of 2022

¶38

4. This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶39

(R.S.M.,J.) (K.B.,J.) 17.11.2022

¶40

dsa

¶41

Index :No Internet :Yes Speaking order

¶42

4/6

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P.No.30585 of 2022

¶45

To:-

¶46

1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶47

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

¶48

5/6

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

W.P.No.30585 of 2022

¶51

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶52

dsa

¶53

W.P.No.30585 of 2022

¶54

17.11.2022

¶55

6/6

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M/s.Instar Foods v. Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Instar Foods v. Government of Tamil Nadu

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

Meenakokila Vs the commissioner

M.Karthikeyan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

N.Anand Pai Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

K.J.Arunmozhi Vs The Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee-Iii

S.Anandarao @ Anandaraj Vs The Principal Secretary

Thooyamani Vellaisamy Vs The State of Tamil Nadu