JUDGMENT 1. These Miscellaneous Petitions and Writ Petitions have been filed by owners of buildings and occupiers, challenging the action of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) and Corporation of Chennai in locking and sealing their premises. 2. Before we venture to consider these Petitions, it would be necessary to recapitulate certain facts and refer to the earlier orders passed by this Bench in W.P. Nos.20618 of 2010, etc., batch and the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petitions filed against the earlier interim orders passed by this Bench. The Petitioner in W.P. No.20618 of 2010, the Citizen, Consumer and Civil Action Group, had earlier challenged the validityof the amended provisions of Section 113-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (the Act). A Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 23.08.2006, struck down the amended provision and consequently, quashed all orders passed by the Government/CMDA, regularising the deviated/illegal constructions made on and after 28.02.1999. In the said judgment, a Division Bench constituted a Monitoring Committee with a direction to take up the cases of such buildings, examine the matter and take a decision whether the same should be demolished or modified so as to comply with all statutory requirements. The Special Leave Petition filed before the Supreme Court against the order of the Division Bench was dismissed on 24.11.2006. At that stage, the State Government promulgated ordinance No.1 of 2007 purporting to make special provisions for Chennai Metropolitan Planning area for a period of one year. This ordinance was challenged in W.P. No.25913 of 2007, which was allowed by judgment dated 13.11.2007 and a direction was issued to implement the order of the Division Bench dated 23.08.2006 Consumer Action Group versus The State of Tamil Nadu, 2006 (4) CTC 483 . The CMDA preferred Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the said judgment in S.L.P. No.23098 of 2007. An order of status-quo was granted on 04.12.2007, which was extended periodically and ultimately, the Supreme Court vacated the order of status-quo by order dated 15.03.2011. The Supreme Court observed that pendency of the Special Leave Petition will not come in the way of progress or disposal of any matter pending before the High Court. During the pendency of the said S.L.P., another ordinance was promulgated in Ordinance No.4 of 2008 which was challenged in W.P. No.20765 of2008. The Supreme Court observed that pendency of the Special Leave Petition will not come in the way of progress or disposal of any matter pending before the High Court. During the pendency of the said S.L.P., another ordinance was promulgated in Ordinance No.4 of 2008 which was challenged in W.P. No.20765 of2008. At the relevant point of time, as S.L.P. No.23098 of 2007 was pending and an order of status-quo was inforce, the Division Bench was not inclined to express any opinion and the Writ Petition was disposed of with liberty to take steps in the pending proceedings. Against the said judgment S.L.P. No.28594 of 2008 is pending, which has been tagged along with S.L.P. No.23098 of 2007. The State Government promulgated another ordinance in Ordinance No.1 of 2010, dated 26.07.2010, extending the immunity given to unauthorised construction for one more year. The said Ordinance is impugned in W.P. No.20618 of 2010 before this Court. 3. When this Writ Petition was placed for hearing before this Court after the order of status-quo was vacated by the Supreme Court, by order dated 15.03.2011, this Court by order dated 12.08.2010, allowed two months time to enable the CMDA and CMWSSB to submit status report. Further, it was observed the authorities concerned shall take immediate action on the lines suggested by the Monitoring Committee and file an action taken report with regard to the unauthorised constructions. On 12.10.2011, a status report was filed from which it was evident that no demolition was carried out in respect of the unauthorised construction. Further time was granted for compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench, dated 23.08.2006, and the matter was directed to be listed on 01.11.2011 for compliance. On 01.11.2011, when the matter was heard, it was reported that CMDA has taken action against the illegal construction and many buildings were sealed. The case was adjourned to 30.11.2011, after placing on record the assurance given by the learned Advocate General and the learned Counsel for the Corporation of Chennai that they will continue their action. 4. The Ranganathan Street Merchant Association, the Petitioner in W.P. No.23936 of 2010, filed a Special Leave Petition against the order dated 01.11.2011 and the Supreme Court passed the following order: "1. Permission to file Special Leave Petitions is granted. 2. 4. The Ranganathan Street Merchant Association, the Petitioner in W.P. No.23936 of 2010, filed a Special Leave Petition against the order dated 01.11.2011 and the Supreme Court passed the following order: "1. Permission to file Special Leave Petitions is granted. 2. These Special Leave Petitions are directed against the interim order dated 1st November 2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition (C) Nos.20618, 23936 and 3885 of 2010. 3. Leave granted. 4. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Association submits that the Ranganathan Street Merchants' Association is a registered body and it represents all the persons who are having their shops in that area. The main grievance of the Appellant is that the impugned order has been passed by the High Court without having given an opportunity of hearing to the members of the Appellant-Association who have been in possession of the premises for over 15 to 20 years. 6. We are not adjudicating this matter because it is directed against the interim order. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate to request the High Court to hear the Appellants and other concerned organisations and parties and thereafter pass the order in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, we are constrained to set aside the impugned order. Now the order be passed de novo after hearing the parties. 7. In order to avoid any delay, we direct that the matter be taken up on 30th November 2011, i.e. the date already fixed as informed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. In the meanwhile, we direct the parties to maintain status quo as of today. It is made clear that all the contentions are left open and the parties would be at liberty to apply to the High Court for appropriate directions. 9. These Appeals are accordingly disposed of with aforementioned observations." 5. As per the direction in the above order of the Supreme Court, the Petitioners and the shop owners were heard on 30.11.2011 and with the consent of the parties, the case was fixed for further hearing on 21.12.2011. 6. The Supreme Court in I.A. Nos.4 to 6 in Civil Appeal Nos.9704 to 9706 of 2011, issued the following directions: "Mr. As per the direction in the above order of the Supreme Court, the Petitioners and the shop owners were heard on 30.11.2011 and with the consent of the parties, the case was fixed for further hearing on 21.12.2011. 6. The Supreme Court in I.A. Nos.4 to 6 in Civil Appeal Nos.9704 to 9706 of 2011, issued the following directions: "Mr. Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant(s) and Mr. S. Guru Krishna Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General submit that the matter is coming up before the Madras High Court on 20.12.2011. They request that the Applications for de-sealing the premises be heard and disposed of by the High Court on that date because their main business is on the Christmas and Pongal festivals and if the same is not disposed of on that date, it will defeat the very purpose of filing the Applications. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the Applications, we request the High Court to hear and dispose of the Applications of the applicant on 20.12.2011. With the aforementioned observation and direction, these Applications are disposed of". 7. On 21.12.2011, after hearing the learned Counsels for the parties and the learned Advocate General interim directions were issued, the operative portion of which reads as follows: 18. Therefore, we are inclined to pass the following interim directions: (1) All building/shop owners whose premises have been locked and sealed by the Monitoring Committee shall submit requisite details before the Monitoring Committee with their request for de-sealing their premises. (2) The Monitoring Committee shall examine such details on merits and in accordance with law as to whether construction of their building premises are legal and according to the sanctioned plan so that those premises may be de-sealed till the disposal of these cases, which have been fixed for disposal, as agreed, during the fourth week of January 2012. (3) The Monitoring Committee shall pass individual orders on such requests made for de-sealing as expeditiously as possible considering the observations made by the Supreme Court. 8. The Petitioners preferred an Appeal before the Supreme Court against the above order, in S.L.P.(Civil) No.36425 to 36427 of 2011, dated 09.01.2012 and the Supreme Court issued the following directions: We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. By order dated 11th November, 2011 this Court passed the following order in C.A. Nos.9704-9706 of 2011: "1. 8. The Petitioners preferred an Appeal before the Supreme Court against the above order, in S.L.P.(Civil) No.36425 to 36427 of 2011, dated 09.01.2012 and the Supreme Court issued the following directions: We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. By order dated 11th November, 2011 this Court passed the following order in C.A. Nos.9704-9706 of 2011: "1. Permission to file Special Leave Petitions is granted. 2. These Special Leave Petitions are directed against the interim order 1st November, 2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition (C) Nos.20618,23936 and 3885 of 2010. 3. Leave granted. 4. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Association submits that the Ranganathan Street Merchants Association is a registered body and it represents all the persons who are having their shops in that area. The main grievance of the Appellant is that the impugned order has been passed by the Honourable High Court without having given an opportunity of hearing to the members of the Appellant-Association who have been in possession of the premises for over 15 to 20years. 6. We are not adjudicating this matter because it is directed against the interim order. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate to request the High Court to hear the Appellants and other concerned organizations and parties and thereafter pass the order in accordance with Jaw. In this view of the matter, we are constrained to set aside the impugned order. Now the order be passed de novo after hearing the parties. 7. In order to avoid any delay, we direct that the matter be taken up on 30th November, 2011, i.e. the date already fixed as informed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. In the meanwhile, we direct the parties to maintain status quo as of today. It is made clear that all the contentions are left open and the parties would be at liberty to apply to the High Court for appropriate directions. 9. These Appeals are accordingly disposed of with aforementioned observations". Our order was quite specific and we requested the High Court to hear the Appellants and pass order in accordance with law. It is made clear that all the contentions are left open and the parties would be at liberty to apply to the High Court for appropriate directions. 9. These Appeals are accordingly disposed of with aforementioned observations". Our order was quite specific and we requested the High Court to hear the Appellants and pass order in accordance with law. By order dated 22.12.2011, a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras instead of deciding the Applications for de-sealing has directed the Monitoring Committee to dispose them of. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, we request the High Court to dispose of all the Applications for de-sealing filed by the Association for 26 buildings and the applicants on priority basis. We are informed that the matters are placed before the High Court in the 4th week of January, 2012. We request the High Court to take up the Applications for de-sealing on priority basis and dispose them of. In the facts and circumstances of these cases, we deem it appropriate to direct that the shops which were sealed by the Monitoring Committee on 30th and 31st October, 2011, be de-sealed for a period of six weeks from today. With these observations, these Special Leave Petitions are disposed of. 9. Thereafter, these Miscellaneous Petitions and the Writ Petitions wherein prayer has been made for de-sealing the premises, were heard on 23.01.2012 and adjourned to 07.02.2012, with a direction to the CMDA to file counter in all the Writ Petitions and implead Petitions and submit a chart giving relevant details. The Counter Affidavits were directed to be filed by 31.01.2012 and the matter was to be heard on 07.02.2012 and with the consent of the parties have been posted today (08.02.2012) for hearing. 10. Mr. C.A. Sundaran, learned Senior Advocate after narrating the chequered history of the case and the earlier Ordinances passed by the State Government very fairly submitted that this Bench in its earlier order, did not issue any positive direction to seal the buildings and it is the CMDA who did the sealing. 10. Mr. C.A. Sundaran, learned Senior Advocate after narrating the chequered history of the case and the earlier Ordinances passed by the State Government very fairly submitted that this Bench in its earlier order, did not issue any positive direction to seal the buildings and it is the CMDA who did the sealing. The learned Counsel by referring to the Counter Affidavit filed by the State Government in W.P. No.20618 of 2010, submitted that the Government have constituted a Committee headed by a Retired Supreme Court Judge to consider all aspects of developments and to suggest necessary modifications to the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (Tamil Nadu Act 35 of 1972). The Committee has dealt with various aspects including the unauthorised constructions and unauthorised use of the premises. It is expected that the recommendations of the Committee aforesaid may result in substantial amendments to the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (Tamil Nadu Act 35 of 1972). Further, by relying on the Counter Affidavit, it is submitted that the committee appointed by the Government, has not completed the review of the Act and there was a necessity to extend the period upto 26.07.2010. In the light of the stand taken by the State Government, it is submitted that if there is an amendment to the Act, pursuant to the recommendations of Justice S. Mohan Committee, it would remove the mischief and a solution would be arrived. By placing reliance on the averments in paragraph 33 of the Counter Affidavit of the State Government submitted that the recommendations of Justice S. Mohan Committee is under the consideration of the Government and therefore, it would be unfair to lock and seal the premises of the Petitioners. The learned Counsel further submitted that it is required to be seen as to whether there is any change in circumstances from 2006 till date and the fact is that there has been a perceptable change and the earlier direction can be modified. The learned Counsel further submitted that Review Application is pending against the judgment of the Division Bench dated 23.08.2006, wherein, the Government have challenged the appointment of a Monitoring Committee and any orders passed in the Review Application would have a bearing on the decision of the Monitoring Committee. 11. The learned Counsel further submitted that Review Application is pending against the judgment of the Division Bench dated 23.08.2006, wherein, the Government have challenged the appointment of a Monitoring Committee and any orders passed in the Review Application would have a bearing on the decision of the Monitoring Committee. 11. Elaborating his submission, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the proposed legislation is addressing the issue that all buildings prior to 01.01.2007 are either unauthorised or have deviated from the approved plan. The learned Senior Counsel fairly admits that there could be violation of the approved building plan and broadly there could be three categories, (i) where no planning permission has been obtained, (ii) the building is in violation of the approved plan and (iii) where the copy of the planning permission is not available. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that till the State Government places its proposal pursuant to the report of Justice S. Mohan Committee, the fate of the 26 buildings, should not go into a irreversible stage and status-quo should be allowed. 12. By referring to Section 56(2)(iii), of the Act, it is submitted that before any action is taken for removal of any unauthorised construction, notice shall be served on the occupier and as per Section 2(28), occupier has been defined to include any person paying rent for the land or building in his occupation and a specific averment has been made in the Affidavit filed in support of M.P. No.3 of 2011, stating that no notice has been served on any of the occupiers and the CMDA in their Counter Affidavit filed in January 2012, has stated that notice has been issued on all the owners of the buildings. Therefore, it is submitted that no notice has been served on the occupier and therefore, the sealing notices have to be stayed by this Court. 13. Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, submitted that the State Government has a right to bring a policy decision in the matter as to whether all buildings have to be sealed/demolished and there are as many as 3,50,000 buildings which have violated the rules and there is no reason as to why the 26 buildings of the Petitioners alone, should be sealed and all equities are required to be balanced. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provision) Second Bill, 2011, and submitted that the Central Government has passed the Bill taking note of the phenomenal increase in the population of NCT of Delhi and various other factors and the Bill thought it its expedient and in public interest that no hardship be caused by way of sealing or demolition of the structures. Therefore, it is submitted that the Government of Tamil Nadu addressed the problem and appointed a Committee headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court and the matter is under examination and merely because, there is recommendation for providing exemption, by itself cannot be termed as illegal. 14. The learned Counsel submitted that the High Court cannot issue a writ of Mandamus to demolish a structure and the High Court cannot impede the discretion of CMDA or the Corporation and in support of the said contention, placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Muni Suvrat-Swami Jain S.M.P. Sangh versus Arun Nathuram Gaikwad, 2006 (8) SCC 590 . It is further submitted if the High Court cannot issue a mandamus to demolish a structure, there is no power to constitute a Monitoring Committee and the direction issued by the Division Bench on 23.08.2006 is unconstitutional. The learned Counsel further submitted that the High Court cannot constitute an extra legislative body transgressing its power, which is clearly illegal and the Supreme Court in I.R. Coelho versus State of T.N., 2007 (2) SCC 1 , held that separation of the powers is part of the basic structure of the Constitution which has been decided in Kesavananda Bharati versus State of Kerala, 1973 (4)SCC 225 and reiterated Indira Nehru Gandhi versus Raj Narain, 1975 Supp SCC 1. It is therefore, submitted that a holistic view has to be taken and the Government may be directed to take a decision based on the recommendations of the Justice S. Mohan Committee by fixing a time schedule. 15. Mr. Altaf Ahamed, learned Senior Counsel for some of the Petitioners submitted that policy of regulating growth is a basic feature in all town planning legislations and life is not static and therefore, town planning legislations cannot remain static and if the growth is unregulated, it shall be regulated by the statute. 15. Mr. Altaf Ahamed, learned Senior Counsel for some of the Petitioners submitted that policy of regulating growth is a basic feature in all town planning legislations and life is not static and therefore, town planning legislations cannot remain static and if the growth is unregulated, it shall be regulated by the statute. By referring to the NCT Bill 2011, it is submitted that the word expedient used in the said Bill is to alleviate hardship and the impugned Ordinance passed by the State Government is one such move to alleviate the hardship which may be caused on account of the operation of the Act i.e. the hardship faced by the shop owners and their employees. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vakhtawar Trust versus M.D. Narayan, AIR 2003 SC 2236 , and submitted that a validation Act passed, validating certain constructions, by altering the provisions cannot be held to be illegal and that such validation act waspassed with the only intention to render decision of the High Court infructuous. It is further submitted that the High Court cannot injunct the State Government from making laws concerning the planning permissions. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Amarjit Singh versus State of Punjab, 2010 (10) SCC 43 , and it is submitted that the power of exemption under Section 113 of the Act is intended to give relief from hardship arising from the operation of the Act and a similar provision under the Punjab Town Planning Act was interpreted by the Supreme Court as intended to enable the Government to deal with situations in which circumstances independent of the question of hardship render it expedient to do so by granting exemption. Further, it is submitted that the Tamil Nadu Government wants to take a informed decision and therefore, appointed the Justice S. Mohan Committee and the objects and reasons of appointing such committee could be culled out from the Counter Affidavit filed by the State Government. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Court ought not to take an activist role in directing demolition of the offending structure which had been permitted to be compounded by the competent authorities and imposing compounding fee is better than demolishing. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Court ought not to take an activist role in directing demolition of the offending structure which had been permitted to be compounded by the competent authorities and imposing compounding fee is better than demolishing. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kewal Kishan Gupta versusJ&K Special Tribunal, 2005 (7) SCC 110 . 16. Mr. G. Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in W.P. No.25468 of 2011, submitted that the Petitioner purchased the property in an auction conducted by the Court and the property has been assessed to property tax and it has been sealed under the assumption that there is no planning permission and therefore, it is totally unauthorised. It is submitted that the Corporation of Chennai having assessed the property tax and also revised the property tax and having kept quiet for 20 years, cannot now resort to sealing or demolition. The learned Counsel submitted that by applying the doctrine of desuetude, the statute should be deemed to have been repealed, in this regard reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation, Pune versus Bharat Forge Co. Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 2856 . The learned Counsel submitted that the property involved in W.P. No.26008 of 2007, consisted of two door numbers, namely door Nos.12 & 13 and initially there was a wall in between these two properties and the wall was removed and the property has now been sealed and the Petitioner is ready to re-construct the wall which may be considered and the property may be de-sealed. 17. Mr. P. Wilson, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P. No.27800 of 2011, submitted that the building is in existence for 50 years and the Petitioners are the occupiers of the building and no notice was issued to the occupiers and the notice of sealing affixed on the property gives a wrong door number and street name and from the typed set filed by the Corporation of Chennai, it is seen that the notice was served on one Mr. Srinivasalu Chetty, the owner of the building, who died in 1988. It is further submitted that under Section 56(1)(d), notice is required to be served on the occupier and in the absence of such notice, the sealing of the building is non-est in law. Srinivasalu Chetty, the owner of the building, who died in 1988. It is further submitted that under Section 56(1)(d), notice is required to be served on the occupier and in the absence of such notice, the sealing of the building is non-est in law. It is further submitted Section 56(1)(d) which was brought into the statute by amending Act 61 of 2008, has not received the assent of the President and cannot be enforced. Further, Section 56(2-A), has been challenged in W.P. Nos.1724 to 1727 of 2012 and the Constitutional validity of the same, has to be tested by this Court. The learned Counsel further submitted that six members of the Monitoring Committee are retired I.A.S officers and such committee cannot be a super-body to nullify the statutory power and the right to shelter is a fundamental right. 18. Mr. V.T. Gopalan, Mr. R. Thiyagarajan, learned Senior Counsels appearing for the impleading parties prayed for impleading the Petitioners as parties to the Writ Petition and would adopt the submissions of the other learned Senior Counsels. Mr. R. Mohan the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in W.P. No.29258 of 2011, would also adopt the submission of the learned Senior Counsels. 19. Mr. A. Navaneethakrishnan, the learned Advocate General submitted that the Writ Petitions which have been now filed, challenging the vires of Section 56(2-A) of the Act, are yet to be admitted and the same can be taken up after notices have been issued to the Respondents. It is further submitted that as long as the judgment of the Division Bench dated 23.08.2006, is inforce, the action of the CMDA in sealing the buildings is in accordance with law. The notices were issued in accordance with Section 56(2-A) of the Act and the notice could be served either on the owner or occupier as the case may be and as such action has been taken by fully complying with the procedure under the statute. The learned Advocate General by producing the report of Justice S. Mohan committee submitted that there is no blanket exemption recommended in the committee's report and the salient features have been stated in the Counter Affidavit. It is further submitted that the Government is going to take a decision within a reasonable time and therefore, this Court may grant time to enable the Government to take a decision in the matter. 20. Mr. It is further submitted that the Government is going to take a decision within a reasonable time and therefore, this Court may grant time to enable the Government to take a decision in the matter. 20. Mr. T. Mohan, learned Counsel appearing for the public interest litigant, while countering the submission of the learned Counsels for the Petitioners, submitted that the report of Justice S. Mohan committee was submitted in July 2010, and was produced before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court after taking note of the same, by order dated 15.03.2011, vacated the order of status-quo. Therefore, the Petitioners cannot base their submissions on the said report at this stage. It is further submitted that the Review Petitions filed before this Court, were filed after the dismissal of the S.L.P. and the Supreme Court has held that such Review Petitions are an abuse of process of Court. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Meghmala versus G. Narasimha Reddy, 2010 (8) SCC 383 , which had dismissed and followed the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court on the said point. Further, the learned Counsel submitted that the earlier Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.25913 of 2007, took note of an identical submission and rejected the same by judgment dated 13.11.2007. It is further submitted that the contention of the Petitioner that change in circumstances, should be considered, cannot be accepted since the law applicable on the date of the Application will govern the field and in this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kumaran Silks Trade (P) Ltd. (2) versus Devendra, 2006 (8) SCC 555 . It is further submitted that as on date, the report of Justice S. Mohan Committee, has not been accepted by the Government and therefore, based on the said report, the Petitioners cannot seek for any relief. It is further submitted that the buildings which have been sealed are commercial buildings, where crores of money are transacted and in no manner the right to shelter is impinged. Further, it is submitted that the Fire Safety standards have not been complied with and the Deputy Director of Fire and Rescue Services Department, has submitted a report, which has to be taken note of. Further, it is submitted that the Fire Safety standards have not been complied with and the Deputy Director of Fire and Rescue Services Department, has submitted a report, which has to be taken note of. It is further submitted that the Monitoring Committee does not take the decision, but only oversees the matters and the Monitoring Committee consist of six official members which include the Vice Chairman of the CMDA, Commissioner of Corporation of Chennai and other officers and there has not been a single occasion, where any of the official members have recorded their dissent. Further, it is submitted that the Division Bench in its judgment dated 23.08.2006, took note of the decision of the Supreme Court in Friends Colony Development Committee versus State of Orissa, 2004 (8) SCC 733 , and other decision and recorded elaborate reasons as to why a monitoring committee was required to be appointed and the learned Counsel referred to the relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Division Bench. 21. Mr. C. Ravichandran, learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation of Chennai, submitted that the Petitioner in W.P, No.25468 of 2011, might have purchased the property in an auction conducted by the Court and such auction purchaser takes the property subject to the defects of title and the doctrine of caveat-emptor applies to such purchase. In support of the said contention, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ahamadabad Municipal Corporation versus Haji Abdul Kapoor, AIR 1971 SC 1201 . The learned Counsel submitted that under Section 100 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, (CCMC Act) provides for the method of assessment of property tax and the said provision read with schedule IV(1)A, empowers the Corporation of Chennai to assess the property for tax and such assessment by itself will not legalise the illegal construction. 22. The learned Advocate General would add that every building is liable to be taxed and merely because the building has been assessed to property tax it does not mean that the building is authorized. 23. In reply, the learned Senior Counsels submitted that the question as to whether the Review Application is maintainable, is a question to be considered and reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed versus State of Kerala, 2000 (6) SCC 359 . 23. In reply, the learned Senior Counsels submitted that the question as to whether the Review Application is maintainable, is a question to be considered and reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed versus State of Kerala, 2000 (6) SCC 359 . It was further submitted that the Petitioners herein are not parties to the earlier litigation are entitled to canvass all points, moreso, when the review Application is pending. It is further submitted that the Respondents have collected huge sums of money by way of regularisation fee, which have not been refunded and the equities are required to be balanced as the building owners have been paying property tax for several years and their case should be considered. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that if this Court is inclined to direct the Government to consider the report of Justice S. Mohan committee, in that event, the order of status-quo which was passed by the Supreme Court on 09.01.2012, for a period of six weeks which is to expire on 21.02.2012, may be extended for a further period awaiting decision of the Government on the Justice S. Mohan Committee's report. 24. We have elaborately heard the learned Senior Counsels for the Petitioners, the learned Advocate General and the learned Counsel for the Corporation of Chennai. 25. The submissions on behalf of the Petitioners could be broadly summarized as follows: (i) Notices have not been issued to the occupiers of the buildings as required under Section 56(1)(d) of the Act and therefore, the sealing notices are non-est in law. (ii) Justice S. Mohan Committee's Report is under active consideration of the Government and till a decision taken by the Government to evolve a policy the status-quo prevailing should be preserved. (iii) In the light of the change of the circumstances, the earlier order of the Division Bench dated 23.08.2006, requires to be modified. (iv) The Petitioners were not parties to the earlier litigation and therefore, they are entitled to canvass all points including the legality of the order constituting a monitoring committee. (v) The direction of the Division Bench constituting a Monitoring Committee is illegal and violates the doctrine of separation of powers affecting the basic structure. (vi) The Court cannot prevent the Government from framing a policy in public interest that no hardship is caused on account of sealing or demolition of the building. (v) The direction of the Division Bench constituting a Monitoring Committee is illegal and violates the doctrine of separation of powers affecting the basic structure. (vi) The Court cannot prevent the Government from framing a policy in public interest that no hardship is caused on account of sealing or demolition of the building. (vii) Review Application has been filed to review the judgment of the Division Bench dated 23.08.2006 and the maintainability of the review and the merits of the case have to be considered and therefore, status-quo should be maintained. (viii) The Corporation of Chennai having assessed the buildings to property tax and also revised such assessment cannot issue notices for sealing/demolition of the building which have been existence for several years. (ix) The vires of Section 56(2-A) of the Act has been challenged and the same has to be decided to examine whether the said provision confers uncanalised power on the appropriate planning authority who has not been defined under the Act. (x) The insertion of Section 56(1)(d), by amending Act 61 of 2008, has not received the Presidential assent and therefore, cannot be enforced. (xi) That, there are about 3,50,000 buildings in Chennai City which have violated the norms and there is no reason as to why action should be initiated against 26 buildings alone when such buildings have been in existence for several years. (xii) Whether the State Government would be justified in bring about a Bill/Act on the same lines as that of the NCT of Delhi Laws (Special Provision) Second Bill, 2011 to alleviate the hardships that is faced by the owners of the buildings, the occupiers and their employees. 26. The Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, (The Act) was enacted to provide for planning the development and use of rural and urban land in the State of Tamil Nadu and for purposes connected therewith. Section 2(13) defines ‘Development’ to mean carrying out of all or any Of the works contemplated in a regional plan, master plan, detailed development plan or a new town development plan prepared under the Act and shall include the carrying out of the building, engineering, mining or other operations in, or over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any building or land. The Proviso to Section 2(13) enumerates operations or uses of land which shall not be deemed to involve development of the land. Section 2(23)(i) defines ‘local authority' to mean the Municipal Corporation of Chennai and Madurai. Section 2(28) defines 'occupier' (a) to include any person for the time being paying or liable to pay to the owner the rent or any portion of the rent of the land or building or part of the same in respect of which the word is used or damages on account of the occupation of such land or building or part and (b) a rent free occupant. By virtue of the power conferred under Section 9A of the Act, the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) has been established. Chapter VI of the Act deals with 'Control of Development and Use of Land', under the said chapter Section 47 deals with use and development of land to be inconformity with development plan. Section 48 is regarding restriction on buildings and lands in the area of the planning authority. Section 49 deals with Application for permission, Section 50 regarding, duration of permission. Section 54 gives the power of revocation and modification of permission to development. Section 56 deals with power to require removal of unauthorised development. The said provision came to be amended in 2008, wherein Section 56(1)(d) was amended and Section 2A was inserted. Since, the power under Section 56 has been invoked by the CMDA in the instant cases, it would be useful to quote the said provision: 56. Section 56 deals with power to require removal of unauthorised development. The said provision came to be amended in 2008, wherein Section 56(1)(d) was amended and Section 2A was inserted. Since, the power under Section 56 has been invoked by the CMDA in the instant cases, it would be useful to quote the said provision: 56. Power to require removal of unauthorised development— (1) Where any development of land or building has been carried out- (a) without permission required under this Act; or (b) in contravention of any permission granted or of any condition subject to which permission has been granted; or (c) after the permission for development of land or building has been duly revoked; or (d) in contravention of any permission which has been duly modified, the appropriate planning authority may, within (1*) serve on the owner, a notice requiring him within such period, being not less than one month, as may be specified therein after the service of the notice, to take such steps as may be specified in the notice - (i) in cases specified in clause (a) or (c) above, to restore the land to its condition before the said development took place; (ii) in cases specified in clause (b) or (d) above, to secure compliance with the permission or with the conditions of the permission, as the case may be. (2) In particular, any such notice may, for the purposes aforesaid, require— (i) the demolition or alteration of any building or works; (ii) the carrying out on land, of any building or other operations; (iii) the discontinuance of any use of land or building: Provided that, in case the notice requires the discontinuance of any use of land or building, the appropriate planning authority shall serve a notice on the occupier also. (Section (2-A) inserted by Act No.61 /2008 w.e.f. 10.12.2008) The words "within three years of such development" was deleted by Act No.61/2008 w.e.f. 10/12/2008. (Section (2-A) inserted by Act No.61 /2008 w.e.f. 10.12.2008) The words "within three years of such development" was deleted by Act No.61/2008 w.e.f. 10/12/2008. (Section (2-A) inserted by Act No.61 /2008 w.e.f. 10.12.2008) "(2-A) If the owner or occupier, as the case may be, of land or building has not discontinued, the use of such land or building as required in the notice served under sub-section (1), within the time specified therein, the appropriate planning authority if prima facie satisfied, may take action to discontinue the use of such land or building by looking and sealing the premises in such manner as may be prescribed irrespective of pendency of any Application under Section 49 or appeal under Section 79 or any litigation before a Court. The owner or occupier, as the case may be, of such land or building shall provide security for such sealed premises”; (3) Any person aggrieved by such notice may, within the period specified in the notice and in the manner prescribed, apply for permission under Section 49 for the retention of the land, or any buildings or works or for the continuance of any use of the land or building to which the notice relates. (4)(a) The notice 2 (except the cases covered by clause (iii) of sub-section (2) shall not be of any effect pending the final determination or withdrawal of the Application. (b)(i) The foregoing provisions of this Chapter shall so far as may be, apply to an Application made under sub-section (3). (ii) If such permission applied for is granted on that Application, the notice shall not take effect, or if such permission applied for is not granted, the notice shall have full effect, or if such permission is granted for the retention only of some buildings or works, or for the continuance of use of only a part of the land or building, the notice shall not take effect regarding such buildings or works or such part of the land or building, but shall have full effect regarding other buildings or works or other parts of the land or building, as the case may be. (5) If within the period specified in the notice or within such period after the disposal or withdrawal of the Application for permission, the notice or so much of it as continues to have effect, is not complied with, the appropriate planning authority may - (a) prosecute the owner for not complying with the notice; and in case where the notice requires the discontinuance of any use of land or building, any other person, who uses the land or building or causes or permits the land or buildings to be used in contravention of the notice; and (b)(i) in the case where the notice requires the demolition or alteration of any building or works or carrying out of any building or other operations itself cause the restoration of the land to its condition before the development took place and secure the, 2 The words "except the cases covered by clause (iii) of sub-section (2) was inserted by Act No. 61 /2008 w.e.f. 10.12.2008, compliance with the conditions of the permission or with the permission as modified by taking such steps as the appropriate planning authority may consider necessary including demolition or alteration of any building or works or carrying out of any building or other operations; and (ii) the appropriate planning authority concerned may recover the cost of any expenses incurred by it in this behalf from the owner as arrears of land revenue. 27. As could be seen from Clause 3 of Section 56(1) where any development of land or building has been carried out in contravention of any permission, the appropriate Planning Authority which shall mean the Regional Planning Authority, Local Planning Authority, New Town Development Authority and the CMDA, to serve on the owner a notice requiring him within such period being not less than one month take steps to either restore the land to its original condition or secure compliance with the permission or with the conditions of the permission. In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 56, if any notice requires the demolition or alteration of any building or discontinuance or any use of land or building, the appropriate Planning Authority shall serve a notice on the occupier also. Sub-section (2-A) of Section 56 was inserted by Act 61 of 2008, with effect from 15.12.2008. By this provision, the appropriate Planning Authority was empowered to lock and seal the premises on the contingencies provided thereunder. Sub-section (2-A) of Section 56 was inserted by Act 61 of 2008, with effect from 15.12.2008. By this provision, the appropriate Planning Authority was empowered to lock and seal the premises on the contingencies provided thereunder. In the cases before us, this provision has been invoked by the CMDA on the ground that the owners of the buildings have not discontinued the use of such building as per the notice served under sub-section (1) and therefore, the authority is prima facie satisfied that action should be taken to discontinue the use of the building by locking and sealing the premises. It is the specific case of the Petitioners in the Miscellaneous Petitions and the Writ Petitions that the authorities did not issue any notice on the occupiers of the buildings. 28. In the Counter Affidavit filed by CMDA in W.P. Nos.20618, 23936 and 3885 of 2010, dated 31.10.2011, it has been stated that CMDA issued notices calling for approved plans for all the 31 buildings in order to assess the latest position on the unauthorised floors in these buildings of which 15 owners did not respond to the notices and hence treating these buildings as totally unauthorised, CMDA issued a fresh locking and sealing notices requiring the owner and occupants to discontinue their usage of the buildings and to remove the unauthorised floors/portions in the buildings by giving 30 days time with specific information that locking and sealing would be carried out, in case the failed to carry out the measures mentioned in the notice. 29. As seen from the Counter Affidavit filed by the CMDA, it is not clear as to on what dates the notices at the first instance were issued and on whom the notices were served as to whether the notices were served on the owner of the building or on the occupiers. The Corporation of Chennai through its Commissioner filed an Affidavit in W.P. Nos.20618, 23936 and 3885 of 2010, dated 29.11.2011, stating that out of 30 deviated/unauthorised buildings on which corporation served lock and sealing notices, 2 buildings are covered by order of status-quo granted by this Court, 7 buildings are covered by order passed by the City Civil Court and action was taken on 19 buildings in T. Nagar area and were locked and sealed on 31.10.2011, the details of which were enclosed in annexure III to the Affidavit. 30. 30. In the common Counter Affidavit filed by CMDA in W.P. Nos.20618, 23936 and 3885 of2010, dated 31.10.2011, filed on 01.02.2012, it has been stated as follows: 13. I further submit that most of the buildings covered in the T. Nagar Survey Report are commercial establishments run by a single firm covering the entire building show-casing and retailing different materials at different floors. The notice was issued on all owners of the building. It is the duty of the owners to inform their tenants as the request in the locking and sealing notice was not only to discontinue in use but also to restore the building either to the original condition of the land in case of building considered as unauthorised or restore to the building to the approved plan in case the building is partly approved one. 31. A typed set of papers has been filed by the Corporation of Chennai enclosing copies of 23 notices calling for approved plan issued between 14.09.2011 to 23.09.2011. On a perusal of these notices it is seen that the notices have been acknowledged by certain persons who are either the notices or their representatives. The same typed set of papers contains copies of 20 locking and sealing notice issued to certain persons and there are signatures to show that they have been acknowledged. Though the copies of these notices, have been filed, the same has not been supported by any Affidavit either by the Corporation or by the CMDA specifying that in respect of which of the Petitioners the notices were served on the owner or occupier or for and behalf of the owner and the occupier. Thus, unless such an affidavit is filed by the CMDA/Corporation giving full details, prima facie it appears that the occupiers have not been given a notice as required under Section 56(2A). However, we do not propose to take a final decision without affording an opportunity to the CMDA and Corporation to file Affidavit specifically stating as to whether notice calling for approved plan, was served on the owner or occupier or their representatives, notice for locking and sealing the premises whether was served on the owner or occupier regarding as the Petitioners before us, who have moved this Court for de-sealing their buildings. 32. 32. The learned Senior Counsels appearing for the Petitioners would submit that Justice S. Mohan Committee has submitted a report which is under consideration of the Government and if the report/suggestions are accepted by the Government it would result in amendment to the provisions of the Act which would remove the mischief. The learned Advocate General placed before us, copy of the report submitted by the Committee in July 2010. It is seen from the report, the government by G.O.Ms. No.190, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 01.06.2007, constituted a committee to suggest amendments to the Act for various developments of special nature requiring changes in the policy frame work which have been emerging and in order to provide for better regulation of developmental activities and to pave the way for standard infrastructure and it was considered desirable to modify the existing provisions and make provisions for new aspects of development, wherever necessary in the Act. As per the report, the Committee has met on number of days (33 sittings), had elaborate discussion and ultimately, submitted report suggesting amendments to the Act to Suit the present day requirements having regard to the future developments. The Committee so constituted was headed by a retired Supreme Court Judge as its Chairman, Additional Chief Secretary and Vice-Chairperson of CMDA, Additional Director of Town and Country Planning (Retired), Former President of Institute of Town Planners, India, Retired Professor of Urban System Engineering System, Anna University, Chennai, Chief Planner CMDA and Additional Director of Town and Country Planning (I/C) as members. The Director of Town and Country Planning was the Member Secretary of the Committee. 33. The Director of Town and Country Planning was the Member Secretary of the Committee. 33. From the copy of the report of the Committee furnished, it is seen that the Committee proposed for insertion of a new provision, namely, Section 113-C giving power to the Government to exempt any building developed on or before 01.07.2007, from any of the provision of the Act or any Rule or Regulation made thereunder, taking into consideration the furtherance of the objects of the Act, the ecology and environment and having regard to public interest subject to specific guidelines made in this behalf relating to provisions such as fire and structural safety and floor space index, ensuring adequate parking to the satisfaction of the authority, and collection of penal fee at the rates as may be prescribed by the Government and notified in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette with a view to improve the infrastructure in the area concerned to reduce public inconvenience and to ensure public safety. The Committee also proposed the guidelines to be framed under the proposed Section 113-C. For better appreciation the proposed guidelines is quoted below: 1. Proposed guidelines under the proposed Section 113-C: 2. They shall be applicable to the areas covered by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 as per sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the said Act. "In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 113-C, the following guidelines are issued. Proposed guidelines under the proposed Section 113-C: 2. They shall be applicable to the areas covered by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 as per sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the said Act. "In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 113-C, the following guidelines are issued. 3(i) Building should have been completed on or before 1st July 2007; (ii) Adequate measures for lighting and ventilations (either natural or mechanical) should have been taken and a certificate from the local body to that effect shall be produced; (iii) Adequate fire safety measures should have been taken to the satisfaction of the Directorate of Fire and Rescue Service and a certificate to that effect shall be produced from the Directorate; (iv) the building shall be structurally sound and safe and a certificate to that effect from a qualified structural engineer shall be produced; (v) Parking as per standards prescribed in the development control rules shall be made available within the premises under reference or in the vicinity not exceeding a distance of 250 metres from the site under reference exclusively ear-marking such parking spaces for the building under consideration; should such a parking space be provided in the vicinity, the said parking lots shall be either owned or in enjoyment under lease for a continuous period of not less than 30 years; (vi) Floor space index shall not exceed 50% of the allowable limit; (vii) Extent of violation in respect of minimum required road width shall not exceed 20%. (viii) Any activity in the building shall be in conformity with the land use zoning as specified in the development control rules. (viii) Any activity in the building shall be in conformity with the land use zoning as specified in the development control rules. (ix) No hazardous activity or industry in a zone other than special and hazardous use zone shall be considered for any exemption under this Section 113-C of the Act; (x) The building shall be in conformity with the following: (a) The Civil Aviation Regulation of the Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation under the Air Craft Act, 1934 (Central Act 22 of 1934); (b) The Ministry of Defence Regulation for developments in the vicinity of the Air Port stations within 900 metres around; (c) The Regulations of the Chennai Regional Advisory Committee constituted by the Ministry of Communication; (d) The Coastal Zone Regulations of the Ministry of Environment and Forest under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (Central Act 17 of 1986); (xi) For any industrial development other than cottage industry, clearance of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board shall be produced; (xii) Penalty for the violated floor area shall be paid to the planning authority at the rate, which shall be in proportion to guideline value as prevalent in the date of Application, which may be notified by the Government in the official Gazette. For ordinary residential buildings not exceeding 300 square metres, the Government may consider levy of penalty not exceeding 50% of the penalty levied for other categories of building. (xiii) The penalty collected shall be kept in an escrow account to be utilized only for provision or improvement of infrastructure in the area to reduce public inconvenience, if any, caused by unauthorized or deviated developments; (xiv) While according exemption under the Section I13-C of the Act, the Government may impose such further restrictions and conditions as may be necessary to reduce public inconvenience or for furtherance of the objects of the Act, ecology and environment and having regard to public interest or for any other objective. The applicant or the occupier or a person who has right or interest over the property shall comply with the same. Such a conditional exemption shall become revocable at any point of time by the Government, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the applicant or the occupier or a person who has right or interest over the property to explain the failure to comply with such a condition, in part or full. Such a conditional exemption shall become revocable at any point of time by the Government, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the applicant or the occupier or a person who has right or interest over the property to explain the failure to comply with such a condition, in part or full. If the explanation, is not satisfactory, exemption shall be liable to be revoked there upon such development shall be deemed to be unauthorized, attracting the relevant Sections under the Act for any enforcement action against it; (xv) The following developments shall not be considered for exemption under the Section 113-C of the Act: (a) A building with any encroachment, including aerial encroachment, on to a public road or street or any land belonging to the Government such as poromboke, etc. (b) Developments in the Aquifer Recharge Area restricted for development; (c) Development in the Red Hills Catchments Area restricted for development. 34. Admittedly, the report submitted by the Committee in July 2010, has not been accepted by the Government till date. From the order passed by the Supreme Court on 15.03.2011, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.23098 of 2007, it is seen that the report submitted by Justice S. Mohan Committee was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court by the learned Additional Solicitor General and the Supreme Court passed the following order and vacated the order of status-quo: Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the recommendations made by Justice Mohan Committee for amendments to the Tamil Nadu Town & Country Planning Act, 1971 is pending with the Legislature Department. On the last date of hearing, time was finally extended. Hence request for further extension rejected. Heard. Having regard to the inordinate delay in the entire process and the law laid down by this Court in Consumer Action Group versusState of Tamil Nadu, 2000 (4) CTC 181 (SC) : 2000 (7) SCC 425 , the statusquo order granted by this Court on 4.12.2007 and extended thereafter stands vacated. It is made clear that the pendency of these matters will not come in the way of progress or disposal of any matter pending before the High Court. Leave granted. 35. It is made clear that the pendency of these matters will not come in the way of progress or disposal of any matter pending before the High Court. Leave granted. 35. From the order passed by the Supreme Court, it is evident that submission was made by the State Government that the report of Justice S. Mohan Committee is pending with the Legislature Department of the State Government and such submission was made time and again and ultimately, further extension was sought for on 15.03.2011, which was rejected. 36. The learned Advocate General submitted that it is no doubt true that submission was made before the Supreme Court based on the Committee's report, but at present the Government is actively considering the recommendations made in the said report and if reasonable time, which in his opinion would be four weeks, if granted, the Government would be able to place before this Court, their decision in the matter. In this regard, the averments made in the Counter Affidavit filed by the State Government, dated 02.02.2012 was relied upon. In the Counter Affidavit, after referring to the salient features of the recommendations of Justice S. Mohan Committee, it has been stated us follows: The recommendations of the Justice Mr. Mohan's Committee with regard to amendment of Sections 56 & 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 were already acted upon and incorporated as provisions for locking and sealing of the unauthorized buildings by amending the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning, 1971 by way of Act 61 of 2008. The other recommendations are under the consideration of the Government. A decision on the other recommendations will be taken soon. 37. Thus, it appears for the first time the State Government on Affidavit submitted that the recommendations made by the Committee are under the consideration of the Government and a decision on those recommendations will be taken soon. Though no time has been indicated within which the Government would take a decision, the learned Advocate General submits that the Government may be given four weeks time to enable them to take a decision in the matter and placed before this Court, such decision taken. 38. Though no time has been indicated within which the Government would take a decision, the learned Advocate General submits that the Government may be given four weeks time to enable them to take a decision in the matter and placed before this Court, such decision taken. 38. In the light of the Affidavit filed by the State Government, we deem it appropriate that the Government should disclose their stand on the recommendations of the Justice S. Mohan Committee, moreso, when, a portion of the recommendation was accepted and the Act was amended to provide for locking and sealing of the unauthorized buildings, by amending Act 61 of 2008. Therefore, we inclined to allow six weeks time to the Government to take a decision on the recommendations of the Committee and file an Affidavit before this Court as to the decision taken. 39. The learned Senior Counsels strenuously contended that the earlier order of the Division Bench dated 23.08.2006, is required to be modified or reversed at the instance of the Petitioners as the Petitioners herein were not parties to the earlier litigation. We are not persuaded by the said submission, since the Special Leave Petition filed against the judgment of the Division Bench, has been dismissed and as on date, the judgment has attained finality. Infact, the Supreme Court while vacating the order of status-quo, by order dated 15.03.2011, observed that having regard to the in-ordinate delay in the entire process and the law laid down by this Court in Consumer Action Group versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2000 (4) CTC 181 (SC): 2000 (7) SCC 425 , the status-quo granted stands vacated. 40. At this stage, it would be worthwhile to see under what circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 23.08.2006, appointed a Monitoring Committee. It is seen that Section 113-A was introduced in the Act, by amendment Act 58 of 1998, whereby, the Government was empowered, on an Application being made by the person affected, to exempt any land or building developed immediately before the date of commencement of the amending Act from all or any of the provision of the Act or Rules or Regulations made thereunder, by collecting regularization fee at such rate not exceeding Rs.2000/- per sq. meter. meter. The Constitutional validity of Section 113-A was upheld by the Supreme Court as a one time measure in Consumer Action Group versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2000 (4) CTC 181 (SC) : 2000 (7) SCC 425 . The Supreme Court made the following observations: "37. Mere reading of this reveals administrative failure, regulatory inefficiency and laxity on the part of the authorities concerned being conceded which has led to the result, that half of the city buildings are unauthorised, violating the town planning legislation and with staring eyes the Government feels helpless to let it pass; as the period of limitation has gone, so no action could be taken. This mess is the creation out of the inefficiency, callousness and the failure of the statutory functionaries to perform their obligation under the Act. Because of the largeness of the illegalities it has placed the Government in a situation of helplessness as knowing the illegalities, which are Writ large, no administrative action of demolition of such a large number of cases is feasible. The seriousness of the situation does not stay here when it further records, this is the pattern, in other metropolitan cities of India. What is the reason? Does the Act and Rules not clearly lay down, what constructions are legal, what not? Are the consequences of such illegal constructions not laid down? Does the statute not provide for controlled development of cities and rural lands in the interest of the welfare of the people to cater to public convenience, safety, health etc.? Why this inaction? The Government may have a gainful eye in this process of regularisation to gain affluence by enriching coffers of the State resources but this gain is insignificant compared to the loss to the public, which is State concern also as it waters down all preceding developments. Before such pattern becomes cancerous and spreads to all parts of this country, it is high time that remedial measure was taken by the State to check this pattern. Unless the administration is toned up, the persons entrusted to implement the scheme of the Act are made answerable to the laches on their failure to perform their statutory obligations, it would continue to result with wrongful gains to the violators of the law at the cost of the public, and instead of development bring back cities into the hazards of pollution, disorderly traffic, security risks etc. Such a pattern retards development, jeopardises all purposeful plans of any city, and liquidates the expenditure incurred in such development process. 38....The waiver of requirements of side setback will deprive adjacent buildings and their occupants of light and air and also make it impossible for a fire engine to be used to fight a fire in a high-rise building 38….The waiver of requirements regarding fire staircase and other fire prevention and fire-fighting measures would seriously endanger the occupants resulting in the building becoming a veritable death trap. The waiver of car parking and abutting road width requirements would inevitably lead to congestion on public roads causing severe inconvenience to the public at large. Such grant of exemption and the regularisation is likely to spell ruin for any city as it affects the lives, health, safety and convenience of all its citizens.... 41. The Division Bench after taking note of the above observations of the Supreme Court as well as the other findings recorded, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Friends Colony Development Committee versus State of Orissa, 2004 (8) SCC 733 , wherein, the Supreme Court stressed the importance of the planned development of cities in developing countries and observed that private interest stands subordinate to the public good. Further, the Division Bench took note of the various decisions of the Supreme Court, wherein, the Supreme Court observed thatconstruction made in contravention of law would not be a premium to extend equity, so as to facilitate violation of mandatory requirements of law. The Division Bench observed that though Municipal Laws permit deviation from sanctioned construction being regularized by compounding, but is by way of exception. 42. Further, it held that to repeatedly enable an authority to grant dispensation of the Application of the Rules is to create a situation which would virtually encourage the consistent pattern of abuse of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The objective of the Act is to promote planned development in the city. The frequent amendments effected to Section 113-A, suggest that the Government expects to check and curb unplanned development only by imposing a fee. The objective of the Act is to promote planned development in the city. The frequent amendments effected to Section 113-A, suggest that the Government expects to check and curb unplanned development only by imposing a fee. The power of exemption cannot operate to destroy the substantive provisions of the statute and these exemption clauses can be applied only to remove excessive and genuine hardship and not to virtually allow the builders a free hand in violating the rules which are enacted in the interest of the community and for the orderly development of the city and in such circumstances, the Division Bench was inclined to appoint a Monitoring Committee to overseer the demolition of unauthorized construction put up in violation of the planning permit, master plan, CR2 and other laws. The Monitoring Committee consisted of six official and six non-official members and the six official members being, the Vice Chairman, CMDA; The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai; The Managing Director, Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board; The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board; The District Collector, Chennai; and The Director of Fire Services. Thus, the above circumstances supported by the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to led to the appointment of a Monitoring Committee to overseer the operations of the Planning Authorities. 43. Therefore, the Petitioners cannot canvass the legality of the decision to constitute a Monitoring Committee in the present litigation. Though, the Review Application has been filed and pending before this Court, the same has not been taken up for disposal and the maintainability of the Review Petition itself has been questioned and these issues have to be gone into only in the Review Petition, which has to be heard and decided separately. Likewise, the challenge to Section 56(2-A) of the Act, has been made for the first time by Writ Petitions, which are yet to be entertained and therefore, we are not inclined to consider the challenge to the said provisions in these cases. 44. The learned Senior Counsels appearing for the Petitioners placed heavy reliance on the 2011 Bill, passed by the Houses of Parliament to make special provisions for the NCT of Delhi. 44. The learned Senior Counsels appearing for the Petitioners placed heavy reliance on the 2011 Bill, passed by the Houses of Parliament to make special provisions for the NCT of Delhi. From a perusal of the objects of the Bill, it appears that the Bill was focused on the issue of implementation of scheme regarding hawkers and Urban Street vendors, Regularization of unauthorized colonies, Village abadi area, to evolve revised policy for proper arrangements for relocation and rehabilitation of slum dwellers and jhuggi-jhompri clusters in NCT of Delhi and the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board has identified about 685 jhuggi-jhompri clusters in NCT of Delhi and relocation thereof is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, the need to pass the said Bill for NCT of Delhi appears to be more for rehabilitation of the slum dwellers, hawkers, urban street vendors and unauthorized colonies, village abadi area including urban villages, schools, dispensaries, cultural institutions and godowns used for agricultural inputs or produce. Therefore, the reliance placed on the said Bill is misconceived as the case on hand relates to commercial building in a commercial area, which is situated in the heart of the City of Chennai and by any stretch of imagination, the circumstances which weighed in the minds of the legislators to pass the NCT Bill 2011, cannot be adopted or even remotely relied upon by the Petitioners to advance their cases. Further, the facts and circumstances which are prevalent here has had a chequered history and we have quoted the judgment of the Division Bench dated 23.08.2006, which had referred to and relied on Supreme Court judgments and proceeded to appoint a Monitoring Committee. Infact, in the Counter Affidavit filed by the State Government (02.02.2012) in paragraph 12, it is stated that the Monitoring Committee is continuing its exercise with sincerity. Therefore, the submission made on behalf of the Petitioners in this regard deserves to be rejected. 45. Chapter V of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, (CCMC Act) deals with 'Taxation'. Sections 99 to 109, deals with 'Property Tax'. Section 99 states that if the council by a resolution determines that a property tax shall be levied, such tax shall be levied on all buildings and lands within the city save those exempted by under the Act or any other Law. Sections 99 to 109, deals with 'Property Tax'. Section 99 states that if the council by a resolution determines that a property tax shall be levied, such tax shall be levied on all buildings and lands within the city save those exempted by under the Act or any other Law. Section 100 deals with 'Method of Assessment of Property Tax' and sub-section 1 states every building shall be assessed together with its site and other adjacent premises occupied as appurtenance thereto, unless the owner of the building is a different person from the owner of such site or premises. Schedule IV to the Act are the taxation rules which provides for the assessment of property tax. Section 3(4) defines building to include a house, out house, stable, etc., and any other structure whether of masolry bricks, mud, wood, metal or any other material and includes structure on wheels or simply resting on the ground without foundation and a ship, vessel, boat, tent, van and any other structure used for human habitation or used for keeping or storing any article or goods. Thus, the definition of the term building has been couched in such manner to include even structures which are simply resting on ground. Interestingly, the statute does not make a distinction between an authorized building or unauthorized building, but uses the term "all buildings" in Section 99 and "every building" in Section 100. Therefore, to state that since the Corporation of Chennai has collected property tax in respect of these unauthorized buildings would legalise their existence, is a far fetched argument and such argument is to be stated only to be rejected. 46. The learned Senior Counsels for the Petitioners submitted that there are 3,50,000 buildings which are either unauthorized or in deviation of the approved plan and no action has been taken against such buildings and the 26 Petitions alone have been singled out. This submission appears to be raised at the bar for the first time and no record was placed before us to establish the basis of such submission. 47. This submission appears to be raised at the bar for the first time and no record was placed before us to establish the basis of such submission. 47. The learned Counsel appearing for the public interest litigant would submit that the submission made by the Petitioners is incorrect, since the Monitoring Committee on examination found that several unauthorised/ deviated buildings were residential buildings and the number of commercial buildings were far less and it may not be correct to state that there are 3,50,000 commercial buildings which have violated the building norms. 48. In any event, to set the records straight, the CMDA/Corporation of Chennai are required to file an Affidavit stating as to whether there are 3,50,000 unauthorized/deviated buildings and the number of commercial buildings, which are either unauthorized or have deviated from the approved plan. After such Affidavit is filed, we shall take up for consideration, the submission made on behalf of the learned Counsels for the Petitioners in this regard. 49. In the light of the above, we are inclined to pass the following directions: (i) The CMDA/Corporation of Chennai shall file Affidavits disclosing the following details in so far as the buildings of the Writ Petitions, miscellaneous Petitioners and implead Petitioners: (a) Whether notices were served on the owners/occupiers of the buildings calling upon them to furnish the sanctioned plan. (b) Whether the notices were acknowledged by the owners/occupier and if so on what date/dates. (c) Whether the locking and sealing notices were served on the owners/occupiers of the buildings. (d) Whether the notices to lock and seal the buildings were served on the owners/occupiers and if so on what date/dates. (e) Whether any of the owners/occupiers (noticees) on receipt of the notices to produce building plan or after receipt of the locking and sealing notices, submitted any reply/ representation and if so the stand taken by them in the reply. (f) Whether any of the owners/occupiers refused to receive notices, when served. (ii) We direct the State Government to take a decision on the report of the Justice S. Mohan Committee, as agreed by them in the Counter Affidavit, the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, shall file Affidavit clearly disclosing the stand of the Government and its decision taken on the report submitted by Justice S. Mohan Committee. (iii) The above directions shall be complied with within a period of six weeks from today. (iv) The Supreme Court directed de-sealing of the buildings of the Petitioners for a period of six weeks, which comes to an end on 21.02.2012. In the light of the above direction, the status-quo prevailing as regards the buildings of the Petitioners herein, pursuant to the direction issued by the Supreme Court, shall be maintained for a period of eight weeks. Post these matters for further hearing on 2nd April, 2012.