Judgment :- (Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records comprised in Letter No.38684/MC/1/2004 dated 24.10.2005 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same.) P. Sathasivam, J. Considering the limited issue raised and by consent of all the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the 1st respondent dated 24.10.2005 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various grounds. 3. According to the petitioner, she is the owner of the property comprised in T.S.No.75, Block No.21, Aminjikarai Village, bearing Old Door No.13, New Door No.23-B, Ayyavoo Naidu Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-30. The said property originally formed part of larger area of about 3600 sq.ft. The said area, which had a Door No.23, was originally purchased by one Vedhavalli, wife of Parthasarathy, by way of a registered sale deed dated 23.08.1972. The said Vedhavalli (5th respondent) had sold 1200 sq.ft.of the said property to her sister D.Jayalakshmi and had executed a sale deed dated 10.07.1978. The petitioner purchased the said 1200 sq.ft.by way of two registered sale deeds dated 17.02.1992 and 13.03.1995. According to the petitioner, from the date of purchase, the said property is in her absolute possession and enjoyment. 4. At the time of purchase, there was a superstructure. There was also a common passage whose width was 3 feet. She decided to remodel her house and put up extra reinforcement, etc., as the existing superstructure was damaged and the portions required immediate maintenance. Therefore, she submitted an application for plan approval to the 1st respondent on 20.07.2003. Since no order was passed even after a period of 30 days, she proceeded with the remodeling of her house in anticipation of favourable orders from the 1st respondent. In the meanwhile, the 5th respondent filed W.P.No.23978 of 2003 seeking for a direction to remove the construction put up by the petitioner in her property and also to forbear the respondents from granting plan approval. The said petition was disposed of, with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 therein to consider the petitioner's (5th respondent herein) representation dated 10.06.2003. 5. The said petition was disposed of, with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 therein to consider the petitioner's (5th respondent herein) representation dated 10.06.2003. 5. According to the petitioner, initially the property she had purchased was 600 sq.ft., and thereafter, she had purchased the adjoining property measuring another 600 sq.ft., and later, she had purchased next adjoining property measuring about 600 sq.ft., totalling 1800 sq.ft. The said Vedhavalli, the 5th respondent owns the front portion of 1800 sq.ft. The petitioner also filed W.P.No.6297 of 2004 and the said writ petition was also disposed of, with a direction to approach the appropriate authority. 6. Though several other details have been furnished in the affidavit, we are concerned about the impugned order dated 24.10.2005 of the 1st respondent rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. 7. The petitioner had applied for planning permission for construction of structure in the plot situated at T.S.No.75, Block No.21, Old Door No.13, New Door No.23-B of Ayyavoo Naidu Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai, which is gaining access from a passage of 3 feet width. Her application for planning permission was rejected on the ground that the passage to the proposed construction is below the required width. Her appeal to the Standing committee of the Chennai Corporation was also rejected. The Government, while considering her appeal, pointing out that since the property, wherein the proposed construction is to take place, is having an access only 3 feet width of passage as against the required width as provided in Rule 19 (Table-A-passage (ii) of the Development Control Rules for Chennai Metropolitan Area, rejected the appeal. 8. Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to the factual details, namely, the initial purchase of the property to the extent of 1200 sq.ft.and the subsequent purchase, namely, 600 sq.ft.both are on the south of the property belonging to the 5th respondent, submitted that on the date of consideration by the authorities as well as the Government, the properties in question formed a single plot. If that is so, as per Table A(i)(a) of the Development Control Rules for Chennai Metropolitan Area, the same should be treated as single plot, which required passage of minimum width 1.0 metre (40 inches). If that is so, as per Table A(i)(a) of the Development Control Rules for Chennai Metropolitan Area, the same should be treated as single plot, which required passage of minimum width 1.0 metre (40 inches). According to him, the 1st respondent State Government failed to consider the factual aspects about the same, namely, purchase of both the properties, which are south of the property belonging to 5th respondent. He also pleaded that if an opportunity of personal hearing is afforded, it would be possible for the petitioner to convince the 1st respondent that the passage satisfies the minimum width. 9. The reading of the impugned order of the 1st respondent Government does not disclose all those reasons, as argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. No doubt, it refers Rule 19 (Table-A Passage-ii) of the Development Control Rules for Chennai Metropolitan Area. However, we are of the view that the factual details, as explained before us, have to be considered by the Government before passing an order. On this ground, without expressing our views on the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner, we are of the view that a fresh opportunity is to be afforded and for this reason, we set aside the impugned order dated 24.10.2005 of the 1st respondent and remit the matter to the 1st respondent. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent raised an objection about the use of the passage (3 feet width) on the eastern side of the property of the 5th respondent. Learned counsel also submitted that the 5th respondent is not in a position to take water and drainage through the said passage. Though we are not underestimating the grievance of the 5th respondent, considering the relief prayed in the writ petition, namely, to quash the order of the 1st respondent dated 24.10.2005, we are of the view that the grievance expressed by the 5th respondent cannot be gone into by this Court, at this juncture in this proceedings. However, the 5th respondent is free to vindicate her grievance before the appropriate authority, if the same is permissible under law. 11. Under these circumstances, the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 24.10.2005 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent. However, the 5th respondent is free to vindicate her grievance before the appropriate authority, if the same is permissible under law. 11. Under these circumstances, the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 24.10.2005 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is directed to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP. is closed.