Disposed

Helen Moses v. The commissioner

Madras HC14 Jul 2023WP/9850/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition sought a stop work order under urban planning laws for construction at a specific Chennai address. Respondents submitted that a pre-notice had been issued and the owners agreed to halt work until planning permission was obtained. The petition was closed after recording these submissions.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition closed after recording submissions that respondents had issued a pre-notice and agreed to stop work pending planning permission.

Helen Moses Vs The commissioner — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.9850 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA

¶6

W.P.No.9850 of 2023

Helen Moses

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Ripon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.

¶11

2.The Assistant Zonal Officer Corporation of Chennai Zone No.V, Division No.70 Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 030.

¶12

3.The Chairman & Managing Director Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶13

4.Naminath Sthulabhadra Vihar Trust Kilpauk Jain Sangh No.9, Millers Road (Opp. Ayesha Hospital) Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

¶14

5.Mr.Parasmal K.Vaid President, Naminath Sthulabhadra Vihar Trust ...Respondents

¶15

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

¶16

Page 1/6

¶17

W.P.No.9850 of 2023

¶18

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to issue stop work notice in respect of the construction in progress under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 to the 4^th and 5^th respondents and thereafter demolish all permanent / semi permanent structures including or any other constructions put up by the 4^th respondent in the property situated at Old door No.9, New door Nos.16 to 18 Millers Road, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.T.T.Ravichandran For Respondents : Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu Standing Counsel for RR1 & 2 Mr.R.Sivakumar Standing Counsel for R3 Mr.Thomas T.Jacob for RR 4 & 5

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to issue stop work notice, in respect of the construction in progress under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971

¶22

and thereafter demolish all permanent / semi permanent structures including or any other constructions put up by the 4^th respondent in the property situated at Old door No.9, New door Nos.16 to 18 Millers Road, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

¶23

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

¶24

Page 2/6

¶25

W.P.No.9850 of 2023

¶26

Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu, learned Standing counsel appearing for

¶27

second respondent filed Status Report dated 09.05.2023. In paragraphs 6,

¶28

7 and 8, it has been stated as follows:-

¶29

“6.I submit that the premises in question was inspected by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Unit 23, Zone VIII and the Assistant Engineer, New Division - 100, Old Division - 103, Unit - 23, Zone - VIII, Greater Chennai Corporation on 17.04.2023. I further submit that at the time of inspection it was found that there was a small temporary shed erected within the premises in question and material have been stored for constructing a building.

¶30

7.I submit that after inspecting the building in question action has been taken by issuing a Pre-Notice dated 21.04.2023 under Section 56 and 57 read with Section 85 of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 directing the owner/occupier of the building in question directing to produce/submit the approved plan copy within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice and also directed to stop the work immediately.

¶31

8.I submit that on receipt of the above notice the Authorized Representative of the 4th respondent Trust

¶32

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

¶33

Page 3/6

¶34

W.P.No.9850 of 2023

¶35

herein had sent a reply letter stating that their Trust had applied for planning permission with the Greater Chennai Corporation vide PPA/WDCN08/03307/2023 dated 12.04.2023 and stated that they will commence the construction only after obtaining planning permission.”

¶36

3 . The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5

¶37

would submit that Respondents 4 and 5 viz., the owners of the property in question will not proceed with construction in the above mentioned

¶38

address, unless and until the planning permission was issued to them.

¶39

Recording the submissions stated in the Status Report filed by

¶40

the 2^nd respondent and the submissions of the learned counsel for the Respondents 4 and 5, this Writ Petition is closed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶41

(J.N.B., J.) (N.M., J.) Index : Yes / No 14.07.2023 Internet : Yes / No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No Jer/nvsri

¶42

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

Page 4/6

W.P.No.9850 of 2023

1.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Ripon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.

¶47

2.The Assistant Zonal Officer Corporation of Chennai Zone No.V, Division No.70 Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 030.

¶48

3.The Chairman & Managing Director Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶49

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

¶50

Page 5/6

¶51

W.P.No.9850 of 2023

¶52

J. NISHA BANU, J. and N.MALA, J.

¶53

Jer

¶54

W.P.No.9850 of 2023

¶55

14.07.2023

¶56

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

¶57

Page 6/6

Helen Moses v. The commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Helen Moses v. The commissioner

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.Narayanan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M/s.Sunmet Holdings India Pvt. Vs The Commissioner

Anthima S Vs State of Tamil Nadu

M.Lokesh Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Anchal Vs State Of Tamil Nadu

V.Purushothaman Vs Government of Tamilnadu