Dismissed¶59

Koval Pudur Residents Welfare v. 1.THE Managing Director

Madras HC14 Mar 2025WP/23763/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL authorisation defect; general body resolution absent; writ petition dismissed as abuse of process and misadventure; Tamil Nadu Housing Board sale of reserved public utility sites; Kovai Pudur Neighbourhood Scheme, Coimbatore; plots CHU035, CHU042, CHU047, CHU049; Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971 S.20, S.2(36), S.39-B, S.39-C; Article 226 certiorari; tender notice dated 12.8.2004; suppression of saleable area; counter-affidavit C.N.Mahesvaran; interim status-quo vacated 21.4.2005; warning in lieu of costs; Madras HC Division Bench Chief Justice K.R. Shriram with Justice Mohammed Shaffiq.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; the three individuals behind the petition were let off with a warning to refrain from such misadventures instead of imposition of costs ¶59

Koval Pudur Residents Welfare Vs 1.THE Managing… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner; the three individuals behind the petition were let off with a warning to refrain from such misadventures instead of imposition of costs

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the Kovai Pudur Residents' Welfare Association had validly authorised the filing of the public interest litigation (letter signed by President, Secretary and Treasurer authorising one Sundaram, without demonstrated general body authorisation) +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

The association had not authorised the three office bearers to authorise one Sundaram to file the public interest litigation; the petition is an abuse of process.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The petition is nothing but a misadventure by three individuals who had no authority to decide, adopting an inexpensive route of public interest litigation.

¶58

Key takeaways

Even considering the matter on merits, no provision of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 was shown to have been breached by the respondents as alleged.ratio¶45
The layout plan of the Kovai Pudur Neighbourhood Scheme, Sundakkamuthur Village, Coimbatore, prepared as on 24.2.1979 (placed on record by the Advocate General), shows Plot CHU047 as reserved site for hospital and Plots CHU035, CHU042 and CHU049 as reserved for public purpose.ratio¶53
There is nothing to indicate that the Board changed the purpose for which the plots were reserved.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (K.R. Shriram, Chief Justice, with Mohammed Shaffiq, Justice; order made by the Chief Justice), W.P. No.23763 of 2004, decided 14.03.2025: Dismissed a public interest writ petition (Article 226 certiorari) filed in 2004 by Kovai Pudur Residents' Welfare Association challenging the Tamil Nadu Housing Board tender/public notice dated 12.8.2004 inviting quotations for four 'public utility' sites (CHU035, CHU042, CHU047, CHU049) in the Kovai Pudur Neighbourhood Scheme, Coimbatore. The Court found (i) no valid authorisation for the PIL — the letter signed by the President, Secretary and Treasurer nowhere showed general body authorisation, making the petition 'an abuse of process'; and (ii) on merits, no provision of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (Ss. 20, 2(36), 39-B, 39-C canvassed) was shown to be breached; the layout plan prepared as on 24.2.1979 showed CHU047 reserved for hospital and the other three plots reserved for public purpose, with nothing indicating any change of reserved purpose; counter averments were not denied and the petitioner was alleged (without denial) to have suppressed the saleable-area classification of the sites. Petition dismissed with no order as to costs; the three individuals were let off with a warning, the Court having been initially inclined to impose costs.

¶1

W.P.No.23763 of 2004

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.03.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶8

W.P No.23763 of 2004

¶9

Kovai Pudur Residents' Welfare Association, rep. by its Member, T.Sundaram, S/o.N.Thambatti Achari, W-78A, Housing Unit, Kovai Pudur Post, Coimbatore - 641 042. .. Petitioner

¶10

vs.

¶11

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai - 600 035.

¶12

2.The District Collector, Coimbatore - 641 018.

¶13

3.The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Coimbatore Housing Unit, Tatabad, Coimbatore - 641 012.

¶14

____________ Page 1 of 10_

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.23763 of 2004

¶17

4.The Commissioner, Kuniyamuthur Municipality, Kuniyamuthur, Coimbatore District.

¶18

.. Respondents

¶19

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for records relating to the tender notice dated 12.8.2004 issued by the third respondent and quash the same.

¶20

For Petitioner : Ms.D.Geetha For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate General for Mr.D.Veerasekaran Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3 : Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar State Government Pleader for respondent No.2 : No appearance for respondent No.4

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶23

This is a petition in the garb of public interest litigation. Three individuals, who claim to represent Kovai Pudur Residents' Welfare Association, have authorised one Sundaram to file the petition. Reliance is

¶24

Page 2 of 10

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.23763 of 2004

¶27

placed on a letter dated 16.8.2004, by which these three individuals have authorised the said Sundaram to file this petition. A copy of the letter is annexed to the petition and it is signed by the President, Secretary and Treasurer. It does not even mention that the proposal to file the public interest litigation was placed before the general body, or the general body has authorised filing of the public interest litigation, or the general body has authorised the three office bearers to authorise anybody they feel appropriate to file this public interest litigation.

¶28

When we mentioned to counsel about these defects, counsel stated

¶29

that it is all available. Any counsel should have advised the parties to file those documents with the petition or at least make such averments in the petition or at least keep those papers available for inspection when the matter is listed for final hearing and not make oral submissions. Therefore, we are not satisfied that the association had even authorised these three individuals to authorise one Sundaram to file this public interest litigation. In our opinion, this is nothing but an abuse of process.

¶30

____________ Page 3 of 10_

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.23763 of 2004

¶33

Even considering the matter on merits, the whole thing appears to

¶34

be an absolute misadventure. The affidavit in support of the petition is bereft of any details. Petitioner has approached this court impugning a public notice dated 12.8.2004 that was issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (Board) inviting quotations for vacant sites which were put to sale by the Board. Petitioner is concerned only with four of the ten sites. The four sites are CHU035, CHU042, CHU047 and CHU049. The notice described these sites as Public Utility Site 15B, Public Utility Site (Block H-10), Public Utility Site (Reserved for Hospital) and Public Utility Site (A Block 17B), respectively.

¶35

Before this public notice, the Board had issued an earlier notice,

¶36

which was withdrawn. In response to the earlier notice, petitioner had made a representation raising objection to the sale of plots reserved for public purpose in the Kovai Pudur Neighbourhood Scheme. Petitioner had also submitted that Plot CHU047, in particular, was earmarked for public purpose and the said plot was being used by residents as playground and should not be put up for sale.

¶37

____________ Page 4 of 10_

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.23763 of 2004

¶40

Unhappy with the lack of response and in view of the subsequent notice dated 12.8.2004, this petition came to be filed on 18.8.2004. On 5.11.2004, an interim order was passed by this court directing status-quo to be maintained, which order came to be vacated on 21.4.2005. Thereafter, no stay has been granted and the matter is now listed today for final hearing.

¶41

According to petitioner, the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (the Act) provides that once detailed development plan is approved and certain areas are earmarked for specific purposes, the same cannot be altered. Counsel referred to Section 20 of the Act which provides that a detailed development plan may propose or provide for various matters mentioned therein; Section 2(36) of the Act, which defines “ public purpose ” as any purpose which is useful to the public or any class or section of the public; Section 39-B of the Act which empowers the Government to direct any appropriate planning authority to make a scheme for any specific area and submit for their approval; and Section 39-C of the Act which

¶42

____________ Page 5 of 10_

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.23763 of 2004

¶45

places restrictions on land development work, within the area covered under the Scheme, without obtaining permission from the appropriate planning authority, etc. However, no provision was shown to us which respondents have committed a breach, as alleged.

¶46

Respondents, and when we say respondents herein, the main contesting respondents, namely, respondent Nos.1 and 3, have filed a counter through one C.N.Mahesvaran, affirmed on 11.3.2005. Admittedly, no rejoinder has been filed.

¶47

In the counter, it is stated that the layout provided for commercial sites, school sites, religious purpose and public purpose sites, which come under saleable category. In the affidavit, it is also stated that press releases were issued through Department of Information and Public Relations for disposal of saleable areas in various schemes of Coimbatore Housing Units. As regards the Kovai Pudur Neighbourhood Scheme, the layout plan provided for roads, parks coming under non-saleable area; and commercial sites, school sites, hospital site, police station, fire station, post office,

¶48

____________ Page 6 of 10_

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.No.23763 of 2004

¶51

community hall site and public purposes sites, etc. under saleabe area. It is also stated that the layout plan was revised during 1975 without any alteration in the reserved sites for public purpose. It is also stated that the sites which are put up for sale continued to be in possession and control of the Board and have not been handed over to Kuniyamuthur Municipality, which is one of the grounds raised in the petition. These averments have not been denied.

¶52

A serious allegation is also made, which has not been denied, that petitioner has suppressed the fact that sites earmarked for shops, community hall, hospital, police station, fire station, post office and reserved developed plots fall under saleable area of the layout plan.

¶53

Learned Advocate General placed on record a layout plan of Kovai Pudur Neighbourhood Scheme, Sundakkamuthur Village, Coimbatore, prepared as on 24.2.1979. The layout plan shows Plot CHU047 as reserved site for hospital. It also shows Plots CHU035, CHU042 and CHU049 as reserved for public purpose. The notice issued for sale also invites bids for

¶54

____________ Page 7 of 10_

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.No.23763 of 2004

¶57

these plots of land describing the same as public utility sites. There is nothing to indicate that the Board has changed the purpose for which these plots were reserved.

¶58

In these circumstances, the petition, as we noted earlier, is nothing but a misadventure by three individuals, who had no authority to decide, to adopt an inexpensive route of public interest litigation. As the petition was filed almost 21 years ago, we would let off these three individuals with a warning to refrain from such misadventures, though we were initially inclined to impose costs.

¶59

Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶60

(K.R.SHRIRAM, C.J.) (MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.) 14.03.2025 Index : Yes/No NC : Yes/No sasi

¶61

____________ Page 8 of 10_

¶62

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

¶63

W.P.No.23763 of 2004

¶64

To: