P SRIDHAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of all the writ petitions mentioned above. The petitions have been mostly filed in pairs. While in W.P. Nos. 7070, 9111, 14048, 9970, 10006, 13482 of 1995, the constitutional validity of Chapter X-A of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (in short 'the Act'), consisting of Sec. 217-A to 217-Q, and the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities (Hill Stations) Building Rules, 1993 (in short 'the Rules' was challenged on the ground of the provisions being discriminatory and arbitrary and, therefore, contravening Art. 14 of the Constitution of India; in the other writ petitions, viz. W.P. Nos. 7069, 9971, 12396, 14047, 9112, 13481 of 1995 and 663 and 2142 of 1996, the notices issued by the Collector (2nd respondent) for demolition or as the case may be for initiating the enquiry into the legality or otherwise of the constructions were challenged and a simple Writ of Mandamus was sought for. Since all the writ petitions pertain to the constitutional validity of Chapter X-A of the Act and the challenge to the notices sent by the Collector depends only on the question of the constitutional validity of Chapter X-A of the Act, we propose to dispose of all these writ petitions by this common judgment.

(2.) Chapter X-A, consisting of Secs. 217A to 217Q, was introduced by the Tamil Nadu Act VIII of 1992. This chapter particularly deals with the building regulations in the hill areas. Realising that the ecology and the aesthetics of the hill stations were being marred because of the indiscriminate construction activities, the State Government has introduced this chapter, creating stringent conditions for construction of buildings in the hill areas as also for the regulation of the construction activities in hill areas. Various authorities have been created and the powers of those authorities have been defined under the provisions of various sections of the said Act. Even after the introduction of Chapter X-A, the State Government went on to amend the Act and included by that amendment a new provision Sec. 217DD. It also amended Sec. 217J by the Amendment Act X of 1998.

(3.) At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, M/s. C. Sundaravadivel, B. Ramamoorthy, P. Seshadri and V. Rangarajan contended that even after the challenge was made to the constitutional validity of Chapter X-A in the year 1995, when most of these petitions were filed, the State Government had come out with an amendment vide Sec. 217DD which empowered the Executive authority to deal with the construction or reconstruction of any residential building on any land within the area of the hill station having the plinth area not exceeding 250 sq. mts. in the ground floor or not exceeding 250 sq.mts. in the ground floor and in the first floor in aggregate or in case of improvement or enlargement of the existing residential building, the construction of which does not exceed 250 sq. mts. All the learned counsel were unanimous in their submission that they were not interested in challenging the constitutional validity of Chapter X-A generally or of any of the provisions therein in particular. They have, however, contended that the notices which have been issued by the Collector should be quashed and fresh notices should be ordered to be issued under Sec. 217DD of the Act as the power in respect of the residential building not exceeding the area of 250 sq. mts. now lies with the Executive authority, i.e. the Municipal authorities.