SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

We highly express our dissatisfaction over the inaction on the part of the Respondents 2 and 3. Issue statutory notice to the Respondents 2 and 3, returnable by four weeks. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents Corporation shall furnish the names of the officials who were holding the relevant post at the time of passing of orders by this Court i.e., on 21.09.2020 and subsequently, to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, who shall implead them are parties in the contempt petition. Post on 05.01.2023.          [S.V.N., J.]   [R.H.., J.] 30.11.2022 arr Note: (i) Issue order copy on 09.12.2022. (ii) Registry is directed to issue statutory notice on or                before 13.12.2022. S.VAIDYANATHAN, J. and R.HEMALATHA, J. arr Contempt Petition No.2618 of 2022 30.11.2022

by ·

Contempt Petition No.2618 of 2022

S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.

and

R.HEMALATHA, J.

From the records, it is seen that before the Writ Court, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the lock and seal notice had been issued on 28.08.2020, which was scheduled to expire on 27.09.2020 and thereafter, the consequential follow up action would be taken and based on the said submission, the Writ Petition was closed. Since no action was taken, the present Contempt Petition came to be filed.

  1. It is pertinent to mention here that since the contempt petition is pending, normally, the Authority concerned would be reluctant to take a decision on the application. In Priyanka Estates International Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 27, the Supreme Court declined the appellant’s prayer for directing the respondents to regularize the illegal construction and observed as follows:

“It is a matter of common knowledge that illegal and unauthorised constructions beyond the sanctioned plans are on rise, may be due to paucity of land in big cities. Such activities are required to be dealt with by firm hands otherwise builders/colonisers would continue to build or construct beyond the sanctioned and approved plans and would still go scot-free. Ultimately, it is the flat owners who fall prey to such activities as the ultimate desire of a common man is to have a shelter of his own. Such unlawful constructions are definitely against the public interest and hazardous to the safety of occupiers and residents of multi-storeyed buildings. To some extent both parties can be said to be equally responsible for this. Still the greater loss would be of those flat owners whose flats are to be demolished as compared to the builder.”

  1. In yet another decision pertaining to buildings constructed in violation of rules, in the case of Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India reported in (2009)

15 SCC 705, the Supreme Court has held as under:

”This Court has, from time to time, taken cognizance of buildings constructed in violation of municipal and other laws and emphasised that no compromise should be made with the town planning scheme and no relief should be given to the violator of the town planning scheme, etc. on the ground that he has spent substantial amount on construction of the buildings, etc.

Unfortunately, despite repeated judgments by this Court and the High Courts, the builders and other affluent people engaged in the construction activities, who have, over the years shown scant respect for regulatory mechanism envisaged in the municipal and other similar laws, as also the master plans, zonal development plans, sanctioned plans, etc., have received encouragement and support from the State apparatus. As and when the Courts have passed orders or the officers of local and other bodies have taken action for ensuring rigorous compliance with laws relating to planned development of the cities and urban areas and issued directions for demolition of the illegal/unauthorised constructions, those in power have come forward to protect the wrongdoers either by issuing administrative orders or enacting laws for regularisation of illegal and unauthorised constructions in the name of compassion and hardship. Such actions have done irreparable harm to the concept of planned development of the cities and urban areas. It is high time that the executive and political apparatus of the State take serious view of the menace of illegal and unauthorised constructions and stop their support to the lobbies of affluent class of builders and others, else even the rural areas of the country will soon witness similar chaotic conditions.”

  1. A First Bench of this Court in Contempt Petition No.1769 of 2015 and Contempt Petition No.2166 of 2015 (Suo motu), took up a matter pertaining to demolition of the violated portions of a building and insisted that the unauthorised constructions are decimated. Relevant portion of the said order reads thus:

”4. We have also perused the report of the Commissioner, who is present in Court.  We have impressed upon him the importance of ensuring that there is at least no continuing unauthorised construction by issuing stop work notices immediately when such unauthorised construction is detected rather than waiting for comparison of the plans.  We have also emphasised the importance of:

  • Checking the buildings from the basement, ground floor onwards, so that the set backs are adhered to;
  • Ensure that the on-going construction complies with the norms;
  • The delinquent officers are brought to book not by mere censure, stoppage of increment, but by more severe consequences like compulsory retirement and dismissal from service. We say so, as despite, mammoth amount of unauthorised construction, we are informed that not a single person has suffered the punishment of dismissal from service or even compulsory retirement atleast for the last five years.
  • Not to let any unnecessary interference with his work by the persons, who have nothing to do with his job and that he should be able to do his task without fear or favour, for which necessary Court protection is available.”
  1. We highly express our dissatisfaction over the inaction on the part of the Respondents 2 and 3. Issue statutory notice to the Respondents 2 and 3, returnable by four weeks.
  2. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents Corporation shall furnish the names of the officials who were holding the relevant post at the time of passing of orders by this Court i.e., on 21.09.2020 and subsequently, to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, who shall implead them are parties in the contempt petition.
  3. Post on 05.01.2023.

[S.V.N., J.]   [R.H.., J.]

30.11.2022

arr

Note: (i) Issue order copy on 09.12.2022.

(ii) Registry is directed to issue statutory notice on or                before 13.12.2022.

S.VAIDYANATHAN, J. and R.HEMALATHA, J.

arr

Contempt Petition No.2618 of 2022

 

30.11.2022

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

7/7

You may also like...