LAWS(MAD)-1995-4-111

PALANI HILLS CONSERVATION COUNCIL REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, NAVROZ MODY Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, KODAIKANAL TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PLEASANT STAY (KODAI) HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RAKESH MI

Decided On April 10, 1995
PALANI HILLS CONSERVATION COUNCIL REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, NAVROZ MODY Appellant
V/S
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, KODAIKANAL TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PLEASANT STAY (KODAI) HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RAKESH MI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is said that "Kodaikanal is a charming Hill Station unspoiled by modern development and is known as Princess of Hill Stations of South". But alas, the facts of this case show that the day is not far off when Kodaikanal will lose its name and fame.

(2.) These three Writ petitions have been filed by Palni Hills Conservation Council, a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. One of the objects of the Society, which is hereinafter referred to as "the Petitioner", is to preserve and protect the environment in and around Kodaikanal. The State of Tamil Nadu is the first Respondent in all the Writ petitions. In the first Writ petition it is represented by its Secretary to Government. Rural Development and Local Administration Department while in the other two it is represented by its Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department. Kodaikanal Township Committee is the second Respondent in the first two Writ petitions. Pleasant Stay Hotel is the third Respondent in the first two writ petitions, while the second Respondent in the third Writ petition is Pleasant Stay (Kodai) Hotels Private Ltd. It is hereinafter referred to as" the Hotel" for the sake of convenience. The fourth Respondent in the first two writ petitions is Mr. Rakesh Mittal, who is the Executive Director of the Hotel, third Respondent in the first two writ petitions and the second Respondent in the last writ petition. The 7th Respondent in the second writ petition viz., the Union of India represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests is the third Respondent in the last writ petition. Respondents 5 and 6 in the second writ petition being the Indian Bank Limited and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board are not parties to the other two Writ petitions. They are only proforma parties in the second Writ petition as no relief has been prayed for against them. The main contesting party is the Hotel. The State Government is supporting the Hotel in the second and the third Writ petitions, as the subject matter of attack are orders issued by the Government. II CHRONOLOGY

(3.) In April, 1991, the Hotel applied to the Kodaikanal Township Committee for permission to construct a hotel building in R.S. No. 149(p) at Blissvilla Street, Kodaikanal, along with plans and other required documents. As per the plan the building was to comprise a ground floor and a first floor. According to Appendix 'D' the area of the site and the total floor area of the building are 3320 sq. Meters and 2972.01 Sq. Meters respectively. The area of the ground floor is 1380 sq. Meters and that of the first floor is 1411.28 sq. Meters. The area of the open space after proposal is stated to be 1939.46 sq. Meters. The specifications of the foundations, superstructure, flooring, roofing, doors and windows and lintels have all been set out in the said Appendix. A depth of 1.83 meters is said to be provided. Some defects were pointed out and they were rectified. Ultimately, the Township Committee sanctioned the plans on 1-11-1991 subject to certain stipulated conditions. The permission was to construct between 1-11-1991 and 31-10-1992. Some of the conditions are: (1) Construction should not be continued after the expiry of the period of permission without renewal of the same; (2) if the construction is going to be different from the plan, a new plan must be drawn and fresh permission must be obtained; in default, the building constructed in violation of the plan will be removed, and (3) nothing shall do done in variation of the sanctioned plan.