The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner built without sanctioning; after a lock and seal notice, he misrepresenting facts to obtain time under Section 80(A) of the TN Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. Since his plan was rejected, mandamus is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.23490 of 2024
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.12.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.P.No.23490 of 2024 and WMP.25600 of 2024
T.Chandran
... Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to either lock and seal or to demolish the construction put up at No.45, Punitha Anthoniyar Kovil Main Street, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066 and further direct them to follow the due process of granting planning permission to the
W.P.No.23490 of 2024 construction put at Plot No.45, Punitha Anthoniyar Kovil Main Street, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066 based on his representation dated 24.06.2024 .
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vijay Anand
For Respondents : Mr.S.John J Raja Singh for R1 Mr.G.T.Subramanian Standing counsel for R2 and R3
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
Admittedly, the petitioner has put up construction without obtaining a sanctioned plan. When a lock and seal notice was issued, the petitioner has approached the Government under Section 80 (A) of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971[ hereinafter referred to as the “Act”] and has obtained time to bring the building in terms of the approved plan, by misrepresenting facts and making it appear that as if he has got sanctioned plan. When the proposed party filed a Writ petition before this Court in WP No.14723 of 2023 challenging the order of the Secretary passed under Section 80(A) of the Act granting time to the petitioner to bring the building in conformity with the sanctioned plan. The fact that the petitioner did not have the approved plan was not disclosed by the petitioner, who was the 5th respondent in the writ petition as well as the
2/5
W.P.No.23490 of 2024 Executive Engineer, Chennai Corporation, Zone III, who figured as the 4th respondent in the said writ petition.
(R.S.M., J.) (C.K., J.) 02.12.2024 rka Index : Yes Internet : No Neutral Citation : Yes Non-speaking order
3/5
W.P.No.23490 of 2024
To
4/5
W.P.No.23490 of 2024
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
rka
W.P.No.23490 of 2024
02.12.2024
5/5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ of Mandamus can be issued to direct authorities to follow due process for granting planning permission to a petitioner who did not obtain a sanctioned plan.
Whether the petitioner can claim relief when a connected writ petition had been decided on a misrepresentation that an approved plan existed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T.Chandran
The State of Tamil Nadu
The Commissioner, Chennai Corporation
The Executive Officer, Corporation of Chennai
R.Subramanian
C.Kumarappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
