R K JAGANATHAN Vs. VAIDHEEKA MAHAJANA SABHA SANKARALAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Prayer: Petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated therein, acid in the respective affidavits filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to issue writ of (i) Mandamus directing, the. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to have the unauthorised construction made by the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the premises at No. 26, Chitrakulam, North Street, Mylapore, Madras-4 demolished and to prevent the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from making further construction at the above said premises (WP. No. 338 of 1988); and(ii) Declaration declaring that the sanction accorded by the fourth respondent to the first respondent for making construction at No. 26, Chitra-kulam North Street, Mylapore, Madras-4 is arbitrary and illegal and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India (W.P. No. 12882 of 1988) respectively.) 1. The Petitioner in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same person. The prayer in W.P. No. 338 of 1988 is ?to issue a writ of Mandamus or other order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents 3 and 4 to have the unauthorised construction made by respondents 1 and 2 in the premises at No. 26, Chitrakulam North Street, Mylapore, Madras-4 demolished and to prevent (he respondents 1 and 2 from making further construction at the aforesaid premises?

(2.) THE prayer in W.P. No. 12882 of 1988 is ? to issue a Writ of declaration declaring that the sanction accorded by the 4th Respondent to 1st respondent for making construction at No. 26, Chitrakulam, North Street, Mylapore, Madras-4 is arbitrary and illegal and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India?

(3.) IT is also stated in the affidavit that the grant of permission by the 4th Respondent is illegal when W.P. No. 338 of 1988 filed by the petitioner was pending before this court. IT is farther stated in the affidavit that the petitioner and his brothers have not been heard by the 4th respondent and their objections were not taken note of before granting sanction to the first respondent. IT is further alleged in the affidavit that for any construction such as Community Hall in a primary residential zone, even special sanction cannot be granted by the 4th respondent. IT is further stated that special sanction can be granted only to sites occupying a floor area of not exceeding 300 square metres. With these allegations, the petitioner has come up to this court with the prayers aforestated.