Partly allowed

S.Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC12 Dec 2024WP/11925/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed a Form IV notice for unauthorized development issued by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority because it was signed by the same officer who issued the preceding Form II notice, violating the hierarchical mandates of G.O. Ms. No. 7 dated 10.01.2023. The Court retained the Form II notice and directed the Authority to issue a fresh, compliant Form IV notice. The writ petiti

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in part; Form IV notice quashed and set aside. Direction issued to issue proper Form IV notice by authorized officer.

S.Ramesh Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.11925 of 2024

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶7

W.P.No.11925 of 2024 and

¶8

W.M.P.No.13024 of 2024

S.Ramesh

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Principal Secretary to the Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai.

¶13

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

¶14

3.Vaibav Owners Welfare Association, Rep. by its Secretary, Old Door No.20, New Door No.48, Y Block, 5^th Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.11925 of 2024

¶19

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned notice No.EC/N-1/6581/2023 dated 08.04.2024 of the 2^nd respondent and to quash the same.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ashwin Kumar For 1^st Respondent : Mr.P.Balathandayutham, Special Government Pleader For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.R.Sivakumar, Standing Counsel For 3^rd Respondent : Mr.P.Ramanathan

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. )

¶23

The grievance of the petitioner is that the guidelines framed by the

¶24

Government for implementation of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning (Removal of Unauthorized Development) Rules 2022 have not been followed in its letter and spirit.

¶25

2. A detailed procedure has been set out vide G.O.Ms.No.7 dated

¶26

10.01.2023 setting out the guidelines for removal of unauthorised

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.11925 of 2024

¶30

development. Clause 2 authorizes certain officers of the Planning Authorities to issue notices under Form I and Form II. Clause 3 provides for inspection and notices for further enforcement proceedings. Clause 4 sets out the officers who will cause the inspection and issue lock and seal orders. While Clause 2 authorizes the planning Assistant/ Supervisor/ Architectural Assistant to issue Form II notice, Clause 4 mandates that notices under Form III, Form IV, Form V and Form VI shall be issued by an officer of higher level than those indicated in Clause 2. Finally the lock and seal notice is required to be issued by the Chief Executive Officer.

¶31

3. Mr.Ashwin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would point out that in the case on hand both Form II and Form IV have been issued by one and the same person and he has signed for Member Secretary in both the Forms. This, according to him, is not in conformity with the guidelines and a counter has been filed by the Member Secretary of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, wherein, it is stated that as per the circular dated 12.03.2023, issued in furtherance to the G.O.(Ms.)No.7 dated 10.01.2023 referred to supra, they have designated

¶32

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.11925 of 2024

¶35

certain Approving Authorities and Issuing Authorities and the said circular

¶36

and the designation made as per the said circular are as follows:-

¶37

Form	Nature of t Notice	he	Approving Authority	Issuing Authority
Form – I Under Rule – 3	Notice Production Documents	for of	Deputy Planner	Assistant Planner
Form – II Under Rule 4(1)	Notice Inspection Issuing Autho is Assis Planner a obtaining or from the.	of rity tant fter ders	Senior Planner/ Chief Planner	Assistant Planner
Form – III Under Rule 5(a)	Notice for Removal unauthorised development (without Plan Permission)	the of ning	Member Secretary	Assistant Planner
Form – IV Under Rule – 5(b)	Notice compliance Planning Permission (development carried out contravention Planning Permission)	for of in	Member Secretary	Assistant Planner
Form – V Under Rule – 6(1)	Notice Discontinue (ongoing	to	Member Secretary	Assistant Planner

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.11925 of 2024

¶41

	unauthorised development)
Form – VI	Notice for	Member	Assistant Planner
Under Rule	– demolition issued	Secretary
6(2)	Subsequent to Form – V
Form – VII	Notice for Lock	Member	Assistant Planner
Under Rule – 7	and Seal	Secretary

¶42

4. Therefore, according to the 2^nd respondent the Forms are signed by the Issuing Authority after approval by the Approving Authority. Hence, they are in order.

¶43

5. We are unable to accept the said explanation. The guidelines did not contemplate the Issuing Authority and the Approving authority. The Government Order mandates that certain notices in certain forms should be issued by certain officers and notice in certain forms should be issued by officers who are higher in rank. A perusal of the tabular column shows that all notices are issued by one and the same person, which is in violation of the guidelines issued by the Government.

¶44

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.No.11925 of 2024

¶47

6. Even the Forms filed in the case on hand both Forms II and IV are

¶48

signed by one and the same person for and on behalf of the Member

¶49

Secretary. That by itself is not in conformity with the Government Order. Hence, Form IV notice dated 08.04.2024 having been issued by an officer who is not authorized to issue the same, is set aside. From II notice is retained. The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority will proceed afresh from the stage of Form II notice, issue proper Form IV notice by the officer who is authorized under Clause 4 of the G.O. dated 10.01.2023 and pass orders afresh.

¶50

7. Writ petition is ordered as indicated above. No costs.

¶51

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶52

dsa Index : No Neutral Citation : No Speaking order

¶53

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.No.11925 of 2024

¶56

¶57

1.The Principal Secretary to the Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai.

¶58

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

¶59

¶60

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

¶61

W.P.No.11925 of 2024

¶62

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

¶63

dsa

¶64

W.P.No.11925 of 2024

¶65

12.12.2024

¶66

¶67

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

S.Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ramesh v. State 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

M.a.Panchatcharam Vs v.Shanthi

R.Ramalingam Vs Chinnaponnu

J. Sivakumar Vs The Post Master General

G.Srinivasan, Be(Elecl)., Llb, Vs Member Secretary

M/S.v.G.N.Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Member Secretary

D.Ravi Vs the Special Tahsidar (La) Unit