KISHOREKUMAR GOKALDASS REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF KG FOUNDATIONS (P) LTD Vs. MEMBER SECRETARY CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

(2.) HEARD Dr.P.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

(3.) FROM the pleadings, the grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the petitioner is the Managing Director of the Company, K.G. Foundations (P) Ltd., and by application, dated 9.2.2011, he applied for planning permission to the first respondent for the proposed development in the abovesaid survey numbers and the first respondent in principle has cleared the proposal for the said development and forwarded the same to the second respondent. Subsequently, the petitioner, through letter, dated 18.10.2012, submitted the details called for by the second respondent with regard to the copies of documents and certain valuations, which were received by the office of the second respondent on 20.10.2012. Thereafter, three Demand Drafts, dated 31.10.2012 for amounts of Rs.1,00,000.00, Rs.9,63,380.00 and Rs.5,86,000.00, totalling to Rs.16,49,380.00, were handed over to the Block Development Officer, Poonamallee Taluk, as evidenced by the acknowledgement, dated 5.11.2012. These amounts are for Armed Force Flag Day Fund, the Manual Workers General Welfare Fund and Poonamallee Panchayat Union. The second respondent, through letter No.3616/2012/A3, dated 9.11.2012 called for certain details for giving the final building plan with sketch sanction, which pertain to the drinking water facilities and sewerage work undertaken and also sought for guarantee from the petitioner for ensuring that the drinking water and sewerage facilities will not affect the environment. The petitioner through letter dated 19.11.2012 provided all the details to the second respondent. Thereafter, there was no response from the second respondent with regard to the issuance of planning permit/building permit for the proposed construction and therefore, the petitioner made a further request through letters dated 6.12.2012 and 17.12.2012 requesting the second respondent to consider his application. There was no response from the respondents, even though a statutory obligation is provided under Section 202 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act to dispose of the application of the petitioner, dated 27.1.2011, within the time frame. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the above relief.