K SHANMUGASUNDARAM Vs. DIRECTOR, CITY TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged illegal construction of a hotel building known as "Gowri Krishna Hotel" in Town survey No. 226/3B2 and 226 /5B1 in Ward No.76 By-pass Road, Madurai City. He had submitted representations to the authorities for taking necessary action. According the Writ Petitioner, the authorities conducted inspection and found major violations in the construction. But no consequential action has been taken. Therefore, he was constrained to file the present Writ Petition.

(2.) Heard the leaned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the official respondents and also Mr.Ajmal Khan, learned senior counsel appearing for the fifth respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner would vehemently contend that the said hotel has been put up virtually abutting the Highways. He also expressed his grave concern with regard to the deviation committed by the fifth respondent while putting up the building. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing for the fifth respondent pointed out that this Writ Petition has been filed to settle certain private scores. One advocate Mr.Karmegam had put up construction right outside the hotel and that same was caused to be removed at the instance of the fifth respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the said Karmegam had virtually run his car into the hotel building gravely endangering the physical safety of the hotel employees and customers who were in the hotel then. According to the learned senior counsel the said Karmegam had set up the present writ petitioner and filed this Writ Petition to vex and harass the fifth respondent. However, the learned senior counsel would fairly concede that there are certain issues regarding the violations and that therefore they have filed a revised plan. Our attention was drawn to the order dated 09.11.2016 made in W.P.(MD).No.16406 of 2016, filed by the said Karmegam. In the said writ petition, this Court had directed the Town Planning Authority to consider the revised plan submitted by the fifth respondent herein.