M GOUTHAMCHAND Vs. CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for a writ of certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, calling for the proceedings of the respondent in letter No. R 1/22059/98, dated 5.2.1999 and quash the same and direct the respondent to reclassify the petitioner's property comprised in Survey No. 2345/2, 2345/7 and 2345/8, Block No. 46 of Mylapore Village from Primary Residential Use Zone to Mixed Residential Use Zone as recommended by the Technical Committee of the Chennai Metropolition Development Authority.

(2.) THE petitioner is the owner-of the property comprised in Door Nos. 113 and 114, Karaneeswarar Koil Street, Mylapore. THE property is comprised in Survey Nos. 2345/2, 2345/7 and 2345/8 of Mylapore Village. THE said property abuts Santhome High Road and constitutes the corner plot where the Karaneeswarar Koil Street and Santhome High Road meet. THE property is situate near the All India Radio and is surrounded by shop, offices, schools etc. THE said area has been classified as Primary Residential Use Zone. THE petitioner proposed to construct a hotel in the aforesaid property. Hence, the petitioner made on application on 13.1.94 to the Corporation of Madras with a request to forward the same to the respondent herein for effecting a change in the classification of use of the property from Primary Residential Use to Commercial Use Zone. THE application was forward by the Corporation to the respondent and the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs. 4,000/- towards scrutiny fee as required. THE Technical Committee submitted its recommendations, but the respondent did not take any action. THErefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 3795 of 1995 for a Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on the application filed by the petitioner for reclassification. In the said petition, an Order was passed by the Court, directing the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner and pass necessary Orders thereon, within a period of eight weeks. THE Order was communicated to the respondent in August 1995 itself. On 20.9.1995, the respondent passed orders, rejecting the request on the ground that the site under reference is not suitable for commercial development. No other reasons were given. THE petitioner therefore, filed a writ petition in W.P No. 6843 of 1996, to quash the order of the respondent dated 20.9.1995. In the said writ petition, notice of motion was ordered and the matter came for hearing on 29-10-96. After hearing the parties, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order passed by the respondent, and directing the respondent to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner in view of the recommendations made by the Technical Committee. Even though the copy of the order was received by the respondent on 29.10.1996 and in spite of the Order of this Court, directing the respondent to pass orders on the same within a month, till February, 1997, no order was passed. Hence, the petitioner reminded the respondent to consider his application and pass orders at an early date. To the shock and surprise of the petitioner, an order was passed on 9.4.1997, rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the proposed conversion as Commercial Use Zone will create traffic hazard and also that during monsoon, water-logging will prevail in the locality. THE order is illegal on the face of it. THE Technical Committee has recommended reclassification of the property from Primary Residential Use Zone to Mixed Residential Use Zone. THErefore, in the circumstances, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 8867/97 to quash the proceedings of the respondent dated 9.4.1997. THE writ petition came up for final hearing on 5.10.1998. THE learned Judge having found that the respondents have not considered the application of the petitioner in accordance with the directions issued in W.P. No. 8843/96, allowed the writ petition, and issued directions to the respondent to consider the application for reclassification of the site into a Mixed Residential Use Zone and pass appropriate Orders within eight weeks. THE copy of the order was communicated to the respondent in October, 1998. THE respondent passed an order on 5.2.1999, rejecting the request without giving any reason. THE petitioner therefore submits that the order passed by the respondent is arbitrary and the same is violative of the principles of natural justice and suffers from non-application of mind. It is a mala fide order. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) BEFORE I consider the merits of this writ petition, it becomes necessary for me to refer to the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent.