Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 891 (MAD)

Govindarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu and others

2000-09-05

P.D.DINAKARAN

body2000
ORDER: Admittedly, the petitioner has preferred an appeal on 17.5.2000 against the proceedings of the second respondent dated 15.10.1999 invoking Sec.113-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) but, by the proceedings dated 7.8.2000 which is impugned in the above writ petition, the first respondent rejected the appeal as time barred. Hence, the above writ petition. 2. Mr.K.R.Tamizmani, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the first respondent and Mr M.S. Govindarajan takes notice on behalf of the second respondent. 3. In my considered opinion, even though Sec.113-A(6) enables the aggrieved person to prefer an appeal within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, the same is subject to the other provisions of the Act as stated under Sec.113-A(5) of the Act. Consequently, aggrieved by an order under Sec.49 of the Act, which relates to the grant of permission and Sec.54 of the Act, which deals with power of revocation of the Planning Authority, the person aggrieved is entitled to prefer an appeal under Sec.79(1) of the Act within two months as provided under Sec.79(2) of the Act. A reading of Sec.79(2) of the Act further enables the Appellate Authority to condone the delay in such appeals which are barred by limitation subject to the satisfaction of the Appellate Authority as to the sufficient cause in not preferring the appeal within the time prescribed. As a result, in my considered opinion, the first respondent is vested with the power to condone the delay, if any, if the aggrieved person satisfies the Authority with sufficient cause for the delay. 4. In the instant case, Mr.Mohan Parasaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner explains that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the order dated 17.5.1999 passed by this Court in W.M.P.No. 12575 of 1999 in W.P.No.8514 of 1999 and the same could be considered as sufficient cause for the delay. However, I do not propose to express any opinion on merits of such cause and in any event. I find that the first respondent has not applied his mind under Sec.79(2) of the Act as to the merits of such sufficient cause which requires me to interfere with the impugned proceedings dated 7.8.2000 and to quash the same. However, I do not propose to express any opinion on merits of such cause and in any event. I find that the first respondent has not applied his mind under Sec.79(2) of the Act as to the merits of such sufficient cause which requires me to interfere with the impugned proceedings dated 7.8.2000 and to quash the same. Consequently, the appeal is restored before the first respondent and the matter is remitted back for consideration by the first respondent. The petitioner is also permitted to take out an application to condone the delay explaining the sufficient cause before the first respondent, who shall consider the same on merits and pass appropriate orders. 5. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.21759 and 21760 of 1999 are closed.