P RAJENDRA Vs. MEMBER SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the writ petition, seeking to challenge an order dated 25.10.2012 issued by the first respondent viz., Member-Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (for short CMDA), wherein and by which, he had posted one B. Ravichandran, Planning Assistant Grade II, Enforcement Cell as Planning Officer to St. Thomas Mount Panchayat Union and Chitlapakkam Town Panchayat on working arrangement in the place of the petitioner, who is said to be under suspension. The said Ravichandran, who is now been posted has been made as 5th respondent in the writ petition. It was also stated that he has to visit St. Thomas Mount Panchayat Union on all Mondays to Thursdays and Chitlapakkam Town Panchayat on all Fridays. It is not clear as to how the petitioner has chosen to challenge the posting order given to the 5th respondent with which he is no way concerned with. The contention of the petitioner was that posting the 5th respondent in his place was not valid since the said posting was made as if he was under suspension and there was a vacancy.

(2.) It is seen from the records R. Ramamoorthy and Mahalakshmi filed a writ petition, being W.P. No. 17173 of 2012, challenging the order passed by the Zonal Office, Corporation of Chennai, Sholinganallur dated 28.5.2012 and also seeking for plan approval and construction put up by them in building at No. 2/585 A, Singaravelar Nagar Cross Street, S. No. 82/15, Neelankarai, Chennai-41.

(3.) When the matter came up on 2.8.2012, the Division Bench before which the matter came found that the building in question was allowed by the petitioner to be constructed, which is a huge palatial building and it was completed in a span of two years and all along, no action was taken to stop the construction. The building was constructed without any approval and planning permission as required under Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. Though a counter affidavit was filed by the CMDA, since the entire construction was unauthorised, the Division Bench directed the Government Pleader to get instructions as to why the matter should not be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation for further investigation and also to fix the responsibility on the officers, who had allowed the said writ petitioners to go ahead with the construction. The matter was directed to be posted after two weeks.