Writ petition challenging an order denying building planning permission due to lack of parking. The court dismissed the petition as petitioner failed to prove a representation was sent to the authority, rendering no ground for interference available.
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.5524 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.P.No.5524 of 2020 and
W.M.P.No.6458 of 2020
and
W.P.No.5524 of 2020
V.Ganesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
Page Nos.1/8
W.P.No.5524 of 2020
Prayer :
For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.Arun For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms.S.Anitha Special Government Pleader for R1 Mr.V.Sudalai Selvan, for R2 Mr.G.T.Subramanian, Standing counsel for R3 Mr.S.Rajasekar, for R4
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J. ,]
Captioned 'Writ Petition' {hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity}
has been filed assailing an 'order dated 31.05.2019 in G.O.(D).No.53
Page Nos.2/8
W.P.No.5524 of 2020
Housing and Urban Development (UD-VI(1)) Department made by R1' {hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity}.
Page Nos.3/8
W.P.No.5524 of 2020
petitioner has filed an appeal petition under Section 79 of said Act and R1 made the impugned order.
representation from appellant before R1 was received at all.
on behalf of R1 submitted from records and files that no representation has been received. Learned Additional Advocate General also points out that even after 07.12.2018, R1 has sent a letter dated 19.12.2018 bearing Letter
Page Nos.4/8
W.P.No.5524 of 2020
No.3643/UDVI-(1)/2015-8, calling upon the writ petitioner / appellant to submit a written submission within one week. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that this 19.12.2018 letter would not have been sent if 07.12.2018 representation has been received. In any event, it is not available in the files and it has not been received by R1 is learned Additional Advocate General's emphatic say.
Page Nos.5/8
W.P.No.5524 of 2020
Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019' {hereinafter 'new Rules' for the sake of brevity} has come into force and that he has submitted a revision application to R2. We express no opinion on this submission and leave the question open as we are not interfering with the impugned order.
Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order mk
Page Nos.6/8
W.P.No.5524 of 2020
To
Page Nos.7/8
W.P.No.5524 of 2020
M.SUNDAR, J., and K.RAJASEKAR, J.,
mk
W.P.No.5524 of 2020
05.11.2024
Page Nos.8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner failed to substantiate that a representation dated 07.12.2018 was sent to the respondent.
Whether grounds existed to interfere with the impugned order dismissing the appeal by the petitioner.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
V. Ganesh
The Principal Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department Fort St.George Secretariat, Chennai
The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai
A. V. Sreenivasan
M.SUNDAR
K.RAJASEKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
