B.MOHAN KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The notice issued by the 1st respondent in proceedings No.7349 dated 13.06.2005 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) 2.The impugned notice was issued under Section 256(1) and (2) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act (Tamil Nadu Act IV of 1919). The first portion of the impugned notice is a provisional order passed by the Commissioner Corporation, stating that the writ petitioner was ordered to demolish the said unlawfully executed work as per the details on the reverse to bring work to in conformity with the act, by-law, rule, direction or requisition as aforesaid or with plan said permit on which such permission or orders were based. A notice under Section 256(2) was issued along with the above provisional order providing an opportunity to the writ petitioner to show cause within 7 days on receipt of the order, why the said order issued under Section 256(1) should not be confirmed. Thus, the opportunity provided to the writ petitioner to submit his explanations and explains the positions had not been utilized and contrarily, the writ petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner commenced his arguments by stating that the writ petitioner is a practising lawyer in the City. The writ petitioner has not put up any illegal construction. Contrarily, he has demolished the old roof and repaired the same. Thus, the repairing works undertaken by the writ petitioner cannot be construed as a new/additional construction as stated in the impugned notice. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner reiterated by stating that the writ petitioner has not committed any violation and he was doing repairing works in respect of the building owned by 3 him.