AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
The petitioner is an educational agency. In this Writ petition he has challenged an order passed by the 3rd respondent namely, the Local Planning Authority, Nagercoil in demanding a sum of Rs. 2,86,375/- being the balance amount payable in terms of the infrastructure development charges levied under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act u/s 56 as amended by the Amendment Act 2008. It was stated that if the amount is not paid, the premises will be sealed.
The contention of the petitioner was that the order was illegal and it is erroneous interpretation of the Government orders. It is also passed without application of mind. Similar contentions raised by various other educational agencies including real estate promoters and business houses came to be dismissed in a batch of Writ petitions by this Court vide judgment in W.P.No.21402 of 2008 etc. batch case dated 30.06.2011 (Sundaram Auto Components Limited and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others). A subsequent appeal was also rejected by the Division Bench.
Rule 10 provides for appeal. The said rules reads as follows:
Appeal - Any person aggrieved by the final assessment order issued under Rule 8 may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order was received by him appeal against such order to the Chennai Metropolitant Development Authority in cases relating to Chennai Metropolitan Planning Area or to the Director of Town and Country Planning in cases relating to planning area other than the Chennai Metropolitan Planning Area:
Provided that the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority or the Director of Town and Country Planning, as the case may be, may admit an appeal preferred after the expiry of the said period, if the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority or the Director of Town and Country Planning, as the case may be, is satisfied that the appellant has sufficient reason for not preferring the appeal within the said period. However, no such appeal shall be entertained after a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date on which the order was received by him:
Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained under this Rule unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of (he payment of the Infrastructure and Amenities Charges admitted by the appellant to be done or 50 per cent of the assessed amount whichever is higher.
It must be noted that under the amended provisions, it is the case of objection to the levy. It also provides for an internal appeal under Rule 10 before the concerned Appellate Authority. Hence, there is no case made out. The Writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed.