P RAJESHWARI Vs. THE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to demolish the entire structure put up by the fourth and fifth respondents in Block No.39, Ashok Nagar Scheme (4 in 1), 11th Avenue, Chennai, without permission from the competent authority.

(2.) THE petitioner alleges in the writ petition that she is the owner of flats bearing Nos.38/2 and 38/4 in 12th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83. The 4th and 5th respondents have purchased the entire Block No.39 in Ashok Nagar Scheme and they are raising construction for the purpose of putting up a hospital, without getting due approval from the competent authorities. It is further alleged by the petitioner that respondents 4 and 5 have not got permission for converting the residential nature of the flat to a non-residential one.

(3.) IN the case of Raj Kumari Soni vs. State of U.P. reported in (2007) 10 S.C.C. 635, the Supreme Court categorically held that "it is a fundamental principle of law that a person invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands and must make a full and complete disclosure of facts to the Court. Parties are not entitled to choose their own facts to put forward before the Court. The foundational facts are required to be pleaded enabling the Court to scrutinise the nature and content of the right alleged to have been violated by the authority".