Allowed

P.Sathish v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC15 Mar 2024WP/10048/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a fresh lock-and-seal notice issued after a revisional authority had set aside an earlier notice and directed rectification of recorded deviations. The court held the new notice non-compliant with that order and set it aside, permitting a fresh notice after joint inspection.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 27.03.2023 set aside; liberty to respondents to issue fresh notice after inspection in petitioner's presence; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

P.Sathish Vs The Secretary to Government — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP.No.10048/2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 15.03.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶8

WP.No.10048/2023 & WMP.No.10093/2023

P.Sathish

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Chennai 600 008.

¶13

2.The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Building, Chennai 600 003.

¶14

3.The Executive Engineer Zone 13, Greater Chennai Corporation Adyar, Chennai 600 020.

¶15

4.Assistant Engineer Division 173, Part 40 Zone 13, Greater Chennai Corporation Adyar, Chennai 600020.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

WP.No.10048/2023

¶19

5.Additional Secretary [Technical] Housing & Urban Development Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶20

... Respondents

¶21

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire records pertaining to the Notice in MA 13 Na.Ka.No.--/2023 dated 27.03.2023 issued by Assistant Engineer, the 4^th respondent herein and quash the same as illegal, consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 herein to conduct a fresh enquiry as per the order dated 13.02.2023 in Letter NO.23656/UDVII[1]/2015-6 passed by the 5^th respondent in accordance with law pertaining to the property at No.64/3, LB Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Umashankar For RR 2 to 4 : Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu, Standing counsel For R5 : Mr.R.Kumaravel, AGP

¶23

ORDER

¶24

[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,]

¶25

(1)The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash

¶26

the order of the 4^th dated 27.03.2023 and to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to conduct a fresh enquiry as per the order dated 13.02.2023 in Letter

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

WP.No.10048/2023

¶30

NO.23656/UD-VII[1]/2015-6 passed by the 5^th respondent in accordance with law pertaining to the property at No.64/3, LB Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041.

¶31

(2)Short facts which are admitted are sufficient to dispose of this writ petition with directions.

¶32

(3)As against the petitioner, originally, proceedings were initiated for unauthorised construction. A Lock and Seal Notice dated 12.03.2014 was issued with a tabular statement showing the deviations in respect of setback violations and other minor deviations. As against the said order, a revision petition was filed by the petitioner. While disposing of the revision petition, the 5^th respondent has observed that the deviations noted by the officials in the impugned notice are not proper and therefore, a direction was issued to rectify the short comings in noting down the deviations in the building, contrary to the approved plan. Therefore, the revision petition was allowed by setting aside the Lock and Seal notice and the De-occupation Notice issued by the official respondents on 12.03.2014 and 06.11.2015 respectively.

¶33

¶34

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

¶35

WP.No.10048/2023

¶36

(4)Pursuant to the order passed by the 5^th respondent, fresh proceedings have been initiated by the official respondents and the 4^th respondent has issued the impugned notice dated 27.03.2023 recording statements which are wrong. In terms of the order passed by the 5^th respondent while disposing of the revision petition, this Court is unable to sustain the impugned notice dated 27.03.2023.

¶37

(5)Hence, the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned notice dated 27.03.2023 which is not in consonance or which is not in compliance of the directions of the 5^th respondent, is improper and hence, set aside. However, liberty is given to the 4^th respondent to issue fresh notice after making inspection in the presence of the petitioner and specifying the details of the deviations with reference to the approved plan. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶38

[S.S.S.R., J.] [N.S., J.] 15.03.2024

Internet : Yes

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

¶43

WP.No.10048/2023

¶44

¶45

1.The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Chennai 600 008.

¶46

2.The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Building, Chennai 600 003.

¶47

3.The Executive Engineer Zone 13, Greater Chennai Corporation Adyar, Chennai 600 020.

¶48

4.Assistant Engineer Division 173, Part 40 Zone 13, Greater Chennai Corporation Adyar, Chennai 600020.

¶49

5.Additional Secretary [Technical] Housing & Urban Development Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶50

¶51

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

¶52

WP.No.10048/2023

¶53

S.S. SUNDAR, J., and N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.,

WP.No.10048/2023

15.03.2024

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

P.Sathish v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sathish v. The Secretary to Government

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

B.Dhanesh Vs the Zonal Officer

Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited (Cpcl) Vs Tribunal on Its Own Motion -

Sri. Namjundeswarar Sami Temple, Vs the District Collector

P.Kannappan (Deceased) Vs The Commissioner

K.Anandan, Presently Working Vs Tamilnadu State Human

Vijayakumari Vs the Assistant Registrar