Krishna Builders vs The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, The Member Secretary, The Madras Metropolitan Development Authority and The Corporation of Madras

K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.—The petitioner prays for certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings G.O.D.III

dated 19.2.1997, to quash the same and to direct the first respondent to regularise the construction of the fourth and fifth floors in the premises

bearing door No.3 Anna Salai, Madras 600 002.

Considering the nature of the disposal of the writ petition, I do not propose to go into the merits of the disputes between the petitioner and the

stand of the respondents that the construction of the fourth and fifth floors as aforesaid are in violation of the regulations and cannot be regularised.

The petitioner had approached this Court on earlier occasions and the appellate authority herein was directed to dispose of the appeal of the

petitioner. By virtue of the impugned order G.O.D.III dated 19.2.1997 the appeal of the petitioner was rejected and hence the above writ petition.

A perusal of the proceedings discloses that in spite of the request of the petitioner to give a personal hearing by his letter dated 11.7.1996 and

earlier letters admittedly no personal hearing has been given. Apart from the said circumstances, there is also no proper reference to the show

cause notice dated 17.3.1994 in which twelve defects had been pointed out and the petitioner has been called upon to submit his reply and the

reply dated 6.5.1994,in which the petitioner had submitted a very detailed reply running to several pages dealing with each one of the defects as

alleged in the show cause notice.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that there is absolutely no reference to the show cause notice or to the reply given by the petitioner. The

impugned order merely shows that the appeal was examined u/s 79 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and based on the

remarks of the Member-Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority that the Government considered the appeal and found that there

was violation of the Development Control Rules. In the order, the twelve defects as pointed out in the show cause notice are merely repeated and

there is absolutely no reference or dealing with the objections of the petitioner which have been stated in detail.

With the result, I am inclined to hold that there is total non-application of mind of the objections of the petitioner and the impugned order is liable

to be set aside. With the result, I am inclined to give the following directions:-

The first respondent is directed to give a personal hearing to the petitioner after fixing date of hearing and the petitioner shall appear in the

enquiry and submit his objections. On receipt of objections and full-fledged hearing, the first respondent shall pass detailed orders dealing with all

the objections/clarifications by the petitioner. The first respondent is directed to dispose of the proceedings within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of the order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.