Disposed¶37

M/s.Amala College of Arts and Science for Women v. The Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC18 Mar 2025WP(MD)/15768/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alternative remedy — building plan approval — rejection of appeal by G.O.(3D)No.22 dated 07.06.2024 on ground of nearby crusher units — writ under Article 226 disposed of directing petitioner to seek revision under Section 80 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 before Director of Town and Country Planning (two months to file, four weeks to dispose); merits left open; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions: petitioner to prefer a revision under Section 80 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 before the Director of Town and Country Planning within two months; the Director to dispose of the revision within four weeks thereafter; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶37

M/s.Amala College of Arts and Science for Women Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner has an alternative statutory revisional remedy under Section 80 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the original order of the second respondent, without having availed it. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

The petitioner must necessarily prefer a revision under Section 80 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 before the Director of Town and Country Planning if aggrieved by the original order; the Court directed the petitioner to file such revision within two months from receipt of a copy of the order, and the Director of Town and Country Planning (DTCP), Tamilnadu, to dispose of the revision within four weeks thereafter.

¶31

Key takeaways

The Court expressly did not express any views on the merits of the matter, leaving it open to the Director of Town and Country Planning to consider the matter on its own merits.obiter¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), single Judge (Vivek Kumar Singh, J.), 18.03.2025 — W.P.(MD).No.15768 of 2024: Amala College of Arts and Science for Women challenged G.O.(3D)No.22, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 07.06.2024, by which the first respondent rejected its appeal seeking building plan approval on the ground of two crusher units nearby the college. The respondents pointed out that the original order of the second respondent dated 01.09.2020 had not been challenged and that a statutory revisional remedy lay under Section 80 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 before the Director of Town and Country Planning. Holding that the petitioner must necessarily prefer such a revision, the Court directed the petitioner to file the revision within two months and the Director of Town and Country Planning (DTCP), Tamilnadu, to dispose of it within four weeks thereafter, expressly leaving the merits open. Writ petition disposed of; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. No precedent was cited.

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.15768 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.03.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.15768 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.13734 and 13735 of 2024

¶7

M/s.Amala College of Arts And Science For Women, Rep. by its Secretary, Sister. F. Maria Chellamani CIC, Akilandapuram Village, Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District. ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9.

¶10

2.The Deputy Director, The District Town and Country Planning Office, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

¶11

3.The Director Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Higher Education, Fort St. George, Chennai 09. ... Respondents

¶12

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

¶13

1/6

¶14

PRAYER

¶15

W.P.(MD).No.15768 of 2024

¶16

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned Government order as passed by the 1st respondent as made in (3D) No. 22 dated 07.06.2024 and subsequently quash the same as illegal and erroneous and consequently direct the respondents No. 1 and 2 to issue building plan approval to the petitioner's institution namely Amala College of Arts and Science for Women at Akilandapuram Village, Kayathar Taluk, Thoothukudi District forthwith.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Palani Velayutham

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar Spl. Govt. Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned Government order as passed by the 1 st respondent as made in G.O.(3D)No.22, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 07.06.2024, thereby rejected the petitioner's appeal seeking for building plan approval stating that there are two crusher units nearby the petitioner college, with a consequential direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to issue building plan approval to the petitioner's institution, namely Amala College of Arts and Science for Women situated at Akilandapuram Village, Kayathar Taluk, Thoothukudi District forthwith.

¶21

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

¶22

2/6

¶23

W.P.(MD).No.15768 of 2024

¶24

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the construction of the petitioner college commenced from the year 2013 and in the year 2015, the petitioner sought building plan permission for the said building before the concerned authority, which was rejected by the empowered committee citing the reason that there are two quarries nearby the petitioner college. He further submits that the neighbouring quarry site is not functioning, which has also been evidenced from the letter of the Tahsildar concerned and the second respondent has also confirmed that there has been no quarry operation in the nearby area of the petitioner's college. The Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board has also issued no objection for the petitioner building and also issued a certificate with regard to normal air and noise pollution to the petitioner college. However, the impugned order came to be passed by the first respondent.

¶25

3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, rely upon the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning Office, Thoothukudi, and also submits that without challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 01.09.2020, now the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the first respondent. He further submits that the petitioner, aggrieved by the original

¶26

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

¶27

3/6

¶28

W.P.(MD).No.15768 of 2024

¶29

order, has a statutory revisional remedy available under Section 80 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and that the only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Director of Town and Country Planning, if aggrieved by the original order. Without approaching the said authority, the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶30

This Court, after considering the rival submissions, is of the considered view that the petitioner will have to necessarily prefer a revision as prescribed under Section 80 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, if aggrieved by the original order.

¶31

For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is directed to prefer a revision as against the original order before the Director of Town and Country Planning, as per Section 80 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the Director of Town and Country Planning, Directorate of Town & Country Planning (DTCP), Tamilnadu, as per Section 80 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, shall dispose of the revision, within a period of four weeks thereafter. It is also made clear that this Court

¶32

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

¶33

4/6

¶34

W.P.(MD).No.15768 of 2024

¶35

has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the matter and

¶36

that it is open to the Director of Town and Country Planning to consider the same on its own merits.

¶37

With the aforesaid directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶38

18.03.2025

¶39

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No sm

¶40

TO:-

¶41