SUCHITRARAJ VEDAMUTHU Vs. CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is listed today for admission and I heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing counsel for the respondent.

(2.) THE prayer in this writ petition is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to consider and pass orders on the application filed by the petitioners dated 03-06-2004 for construction of second and third floors in the property situated at Old Door No. 51 and New Door No. 42, thirumalai Pillai Road, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.

(3.) MR. Doraisami, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have originally constructed a building consisting of ground and first floor after obtaining planning permission from the Corporation of Madras under the residential category on 04-05-1994; that the building comprising of ground and first floor was built strictly in accordance with the Rules; that the petitioner herein again applied to the Corporation of Madras for construction of second phase comprising of ground and first floor in the year 1997 ; that by order dated 04-04-1997, Corporation of Madras has also granted approval for extending the building of the second phase consisting of ground and first floor under residential category; that the petitioner also constructed the second phase of the building in accordance with the sanctioned plan and completed it in the year 1998; that in the meanwhile, the authorities published second master plan, according to which the area was included into the Commercial Zone and the petitioners have sought to utilise the building for commercial purpose and submitted necessary application to the respondent for regularisation of the use of the building for commercial purpose on 08-07-2 002 and paid necessary amount, but the respondent has not passed any order till date; that the petitioners herein have filed another application seeking planning permission for construction of second and third floors on 03-06-2004, which was returned by the respondent on 03-0 9-2004 stating that the same would be considered only after the petitioners obtain approval for regularisation of the existing building comprising of ground and first floor; that the reason for returning the application is unsustainable in law; that the existing building was constructed in accordance with the Rules and Regulations without any deviation, but regularisation was sought to use the building for commercial purpose, while so, returning the application for planning permission for second and third floors is untenable; that pending regularisation of utilising the existing building as commercial premises is not a bar for sanctioning the proposed construction of second and third floor and prayed for directing the respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioners without reference to the pendency of regularisation of application. The above said legal proposition is not denied by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent.