KSHATRIA RAJUS CHARITABLE TRUST Vs. RAJESH LAKKANI COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides and perused the records including the affidavit, petition, counter affidavit and the reply affidavit.

(2.) THE petitioner had applied for planning permission in respect of Plot No. 26a, Udhayam Nagar Village, Velacherry comprised in Survey No. 299/a. Planning permission had been granted by the Corporation of Chennai in PPA. No. D10/5845/2001, D10/398/2002, dated 05. 02. 2002. It is a fact not in dispute that the petitioner had not started and completed construction as per the said planning permission within the period of its validity. Without even obtaining a renewed planning permission, the petitioner started constructing a building which was sought to be prevented by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition in W. P. No. 15823 of 2007 praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents not to prevent the petitioner trust and their workers from completing the construction work as per the planning permit issued in PPA. No. D10/5845/2001, D10/ 398/2002, dated 05. 02. 2002.

(3.) THIS Court, after hearing both sides in the said writ petition, made an observation that the respondents had every right to prevent the petitioner from proceeding further with the construction as the planning permit granted had already expired and the petitioner had not obtained any renewal of the planning permit. However, this Court directed the petitioner to submit a representation or application to the respondents within a period of one week from the date of the order of this Court passed in the said writ petition, with a further direction to the respondents to consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. The above said order was passed by this Court on 27. 04. 2007. Due to the difficulty faced by the petitioner in getting the order copy, the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of planning permission on 15. 05. 2007 enclosing a copy of the order of this Court. Thereafter, the respondents kept quiet for more than a year. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present contempt petition praying that the respondents should be punished contending that their act amount to willful disobedience.