Disposed

The President v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC19 Jul 2022WP(MD)/14689/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court issued a direction to the fourth respondent, the Madurai Local Planning Authority, to consider and pass orders on the petitioner school's application for planning approval for a third floor construction within eight weeks under the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Directing the fourth respondent to dispose of the online application within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order copy.

The President Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.14689 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.07.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.14689 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013

¶7

The President, Krishnamal Ramasubbaiyer Matriculation Higher Secondary School, TVR Nagar, Aruppukottai Road, Madurai – 625 022.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

2.The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

3.The Director of Town and Country Planning, Directorate of Town and Country Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶13

4.The Member Secretary, Madurai Local Planning Authority, Madurai.

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD).No.14689 of 2013

¶17

5.The Panchayat President, Eliyarpathi Panchayat, Eliyarpathi, Madurai District.

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1^st and 3^rd respondents herein forthwith to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation, dated 24.05.2011, together with the reminder thereto, dated 16.04.2012, with respect to grant of Plan Approval to the proposed construction of 3^rd Floor over and above the existing Ground + 2^nd floor in the petitioner's school.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ragatheeshkumar for M/s.Isaac Mohanlal For R1 to R4 : Mr.N.Muthuvijayan Special Government Pleader For R5 : No appearance *****

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The present petition has been filed seeking Mandamus directing

¶23

the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the request of the petitioner, dated 24.05.2011, and to grant planning approval to the proposed construction of the third floor over and above the existing ground floor and second floor in the petitioner's School.

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD).No.14689 of 2013

¶27

2.According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the said application presented by them was returned by the fourth respondent herein on the ground that beyond two floors they do not have any powers to entertain such application. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner now submits that Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, has come into force. Based upon the said Rule, the petitioner School has filed an online application before the fourth respondent herein on 29.03.2021. Under Section 49 of the Town and Country Planning Act, the said application has also been acknowledged by the fourth respondent herein. For more than one year, so far no orders had been passed by the fourth respondent herein. Hence, the he prayed that the fourth respondent may be the directed to consider the said application and pass orders.

¶28

3.Though the original prayer in the writ petition was seeking a direction as against first and third respondents, in view of the subsequent legal developments, the petitioner seeks a direction as against the fourth respondent herein.

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD).No.14689 of 2013

¶32

4.I have perused the affidavit and the online application filed by the petitioner herein on 29.03.2021. Admittedly, new Rules namely, Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules have been passed in the year 2019. The petitioner has also made an application on 29.03.2021. In view of the above said facts, the fourth respondent is directed to dispose of the said application within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

5.With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶34

19.07.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Tmg

¶35

4/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD).No.14689 of 2013

¶38

¶39

1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶40

2.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Department of School Education, Fort.St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶41

3.The Director of Town and Country Planning, Directorate of Town and Country Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶42

4.The Member Secretary, Madurai Local Planning Authority, Madurai.

¶43

5/6

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.(MD).No.14689 of 2013

¶46

R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.

¶47

Tmg

¶48

Note :

¶49

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶50

Order made in W.P.(MD).No.14689 of 2013

¶51

19.07.2022

¶52

6/6

¶53

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

The President v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The President v. the State of Tamilnadu

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

S.Veerasamy Chettiar Vs the Asst. Director

Kayal First Trust, Vs the Collector

M. Murugan, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

M. Krishnakumar, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

Mlwa Hr. Sec. School, Vs the District Collector

Edward Nikson, Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative