SURIYA SWEETS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus.) The petitioner seeks to challenge the proceedings of the first and second respondents. By order dated 12.6.2007 in G.O.(D) No.151, the first respondent has confirmed the Discontinuance Notice issued by the second respondent in his letter No.ESI/11721/2002 dated 08.09.2006. The petitioner is running a commercial activity at No.66/47, I Main Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-28, where it is engaged in 'selling sweets, fruits and vegetables to the intending customers". There was an earlier round of litigation wherein in a writ petition preferred by the third respondent herein in W.P.No.35483 of 2002 an order came to be passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 7.1.2005. In that order the Division Bench has held as under:

(2.) PURSUANT to the said Division Bench Order, the present impugned orders have been passed by the first and second respondents. The second respondent in its order dated 8.9.2006 has held that the business of running sweet stall, vegetables and fruits at Door No.66/47, 1st main Road, Raja Annamalaipuram in a residential building is against the Development Control Rules and that for any change of use prior permission from the competent authority is needed. Hence, The petitioner was directed to discontinue the usage of the building.

(3.) MR. P.R. Raman, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent on the other hand contended that the petitioner having admittedly caused a serious violation by running a commercial venture in a primary residential use zone cannot be permitted to continue such violation by relying upon Section 49 read along with 56(3) and 47 of the Act. The learned counsel by making reference to the earlier order of the Division Bench dated 7.1.05 in W.P.No.35483 and 37462 of 2002 would contend that the Division Bench in its order made it clear that the so called Suriya Sweets run by the petitioner in a primary residential use zone is not permissible with a further direction to the second respondent to take necessary action under the Act and therefore the impugned order issued by the second respondent for discontinuance of the use of the land and the confirmation of the same by the first respondent is perfectly justified and it does not call for any interference.