Judgment Elipe Dharma Rao, ACJ. 1. The petitioner is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and they have constructed M.A. Chidambaram Stadium, Chepauk, Chennai in the year 1972. In order to provide modern facilities at the Stadium, in the General Body Meeting of the petitioner held in June 2009, an unanimous resolution was passed to demolish the existing stadium and to reconstruct the stadium, in phases. Initially, three stands were put up and prior to the World Cup, 2011, six more stands were made ready out of the total of 12 stands. The stands 'I', 'J' and 'K' were completed by then, leaving only the pavilion as well as the area occupied by the Madras Cricket Club to be reconstructed after demolition. The stadium, therefore, currently consists of nine new spectators stands, which, in combination with the old structure on the pavilion side is capable of accommodating 39,000 spectators. The petitioner applied for demolition of the six stands initially on 10.6.2009 to the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and obtained permission on 7.9.2009 and the application for planning permission and building sanction was made on 24.9.2009 to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) for three stands of three levels and three stands of four levels viz. stands 'C', 'D', 'E', 'F', 'G' and 'H' and the planning permission was granted by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai on 26.8.2010 for the said six stands, subject to completion certificate being issued on Environmental Impact Assessment approval. 2. Thereafter, an application for demolition of the next three stands was made on 9.4.2010 and it was granted by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai on 7.5.2010 and the application for Planning Permit and Building sanction for three stands viz 'I', 'J' and 'K' was made on 17.5.2010 to the CMDA. But, only in 8.9.2010, the CMDA has required the petitioner to pay the scrutiny fee, which was duly and promptly complied with by the petitioner. 3. But, on the basis of the approvals already granted for rest of the six stands and in anticipation of the approvals, the petitioner has commenced the work on the three new stands. But, only in 8.9.2010, the CMDA has required the petitioner to pay the scrutiny fee, which was duly and promptly complied with by the petitioner. 3. But, on the basis of the approvals already granted for rest of the six stands and in anticipation of the approvals, the petitioner has commenced the work on the three new stands. Thereafter, on 5.4.2011, CMDA raised the issue of Coastal Regulation zone (CRZ) clearance for the new stands 'I', 'J' and 'K' and the petitioner has applied for Environmental Impact Assessment clearance in order to get the completion certificate for the initial six stands on 13.1.2010 and soon thereafter, the petitioner was informed by the CRZ authorities that the proposed reconstruction site would fall within 100 mts. distance of HTL of the Buckingham canal, a permanent water way. But, even prior to this and in fact, in anticipation of this issue being raised by the CMDA, the petitioner, in May 2010 itself has applied for necessary approval to the State Level Coastal Zone Management Authority, who has called for various details and finally cleared the proposal on 27.12.2010 by recommending the case of the petitioner to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Union of India and on 28.2.2011, the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority approved the proposal for the newly constructed stands, subject to the Board of the petitioner passing a resolution to hereafter not violate any provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment laws. 4. But, at this stage, the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority was dissolved since the tenure of the Committee came to an end in the month of March, 2011. However, on 11.4.2011, the resolution dated 15.3.2011, as required by the EIA Authority and passed by the Executive Committee of the petitioner was duly submitted, admitting to certain violations and also undertaking not to repeat such violations and since State Level EIA was not reconstituted, this fact was intimated to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Union of India. It is also seen that in the 107th meeting of the Expert Apprisal Committee for building construction, Environment and CRZ, held on 15/16.12.2011, the project was cleared and it was communicated to the petitioner by the Union of India on 7.2.2012 with the identical condition imposed by the State Level CZMA viz. It is also seen that in the 107th meeting of the Expert Apprisal Committee for building construction, Environment and CRZ, held on 15/16.12.2011, the project was cleared and it was communicated to the petitioner by the Union of India on 7.2.2012 with the identical condition imposed by the State Level CZMA viz. to pass a resolution undertaking not to commit any violation in future and such a resolution was immediately passed by the Executive Committee of the petitioner and sent to the Union of India on 14.2.2012. Therefore, according to the petitioner, both the Union Ministry as well as the State Level Authority for Environment Impact Assessment and the Coastal Regulation Zone had condoned any violation committed by the petitioner and cleared the project. 5. In the meantime, the petitioner re-applied to the CMDA, on 13.1.2012 for planning permit in respect of 'I', 'J' and 'K' stands and also paid scrutiny fee on the same day and as per Rule 26(28) of the Development Regulations for Chennai Metropolitan Authority, Town and Country Planning Act, the multi-storied Building Panel met and cleared this proposal on 30.3.2012, which was intimated by the Government to the CMDA and on 25.4.2012, certain queries were raised by CMDA, which were replied by the petitioner, following which, the Government, by the letter No.110, dated 16.5.2012 informed CMDA that approval has been accorded to the recommendation of the multi-storied building panel for issue of planning permit for stands 'I', 'J' and 'K' and multilevel parking in the existing stadium etc. subject to certain standard conditions. 6. On 17.5.2012, the petitioner requested the Corporation to permit the use of the three stands in question for the semi-final and final matches of the IPL-5. In the meantime, pursuant to a notice issued by the Commissioner of Corporation of Chennai, under Section 56 of the Town and Country Planning Act, dated 8.8.2011, the petitioner voluntarily ceased the usage of the stands 'I', 'J' and 'K' even though they were ready for use and in fact were used for several matches including 2011 world cup and IPL matches. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward to file W.P.No.13765 of 2012 challenging the said notice of the Commissioner of Corporation of Chennai in ordering locking and sealing of the said stands. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward to file W.P.No.13765 of 2012 challenging the said notice of the Commissioner of Corporation of Chennai in ordering locking and sealing of the said stands. In the said writ petition, in M.P.No.1 of 2012, a detailed order was passed by this Court on 24.5.2012, permitting the petitioner to use 'I', 'J' and 'K' stands for the said purpose of accommodating spectators for the IPL-V matches held during May, 2012. This order was confirmed upto the Honourable Apex Court in SLP.Nos.27703 and 27704 of 2012, dated 3.10.2012. 7. In the meantime, since the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board had directed that the stadium should not be used for any cricket match or any other event, till the order was obtained, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.24651 of 2012 and challenging the order of the Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic) Chennai Police, Kilpauk, Chennai declining to issue NoC from traffic point of view for issuing Planning Permission on the ground that 'till the completion of construction of MLCP as per the parking requirements, the stands 'I', 'J' and 'K' may not be permitted to be used for public as use of these 'I', 'J' and 'K' stands without MLCP will definitely obstruct the free flow of traffic, has been challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.No.32681 of 2012. 8. Since all the matters are inextricably interconnected with each other, they all have been taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order. 9. We have heard all the counsel appearing for the respective parties. 10. From the materials placed on record, it is seen that after the demolition permission was granted by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai on 7.5.2010, an application for planning permit and building sanction for three stands viz. 'I', 'J' and 'K' was made on 17.5.2010 to the CMDA. But, it was kept pending for three months and only on 8.9.2010, CMDA has required the petitioner to pay the scrutiny fee. Since in the meantime, there was no communication of any sort from CMDA to the petitioner, as has been rightly submitted on the part of the petitioner, the said delay cannot at all be attributed to the petitioner. 11. It is also seen that everything went on well for the petitioner to get planning permission and other necessary permissions for construction of six stands viz. 11. It is also seen that everything went on well for the petitioner to get planning permission and other necessary permissions for construction of six stands viz. 'C', 'D', 'E', 'F', 'G' and 'H', of course subject to completion certificate being issued on Environmental Impact Assessment approval. Therefore, it is but natural for the petitioner to be under the impression that there will not be any other problem for him to get necessary approvals for the other three stands viz. 'I', 'J' and 'K'. Probably for this reason and anticipating favourable orders, the petitioner commenced construction of those stands. It is not a new stadium that is being constructed, but new constructions in the old stadium. Had it been the case that no permission was earlier granted by the authorities for construction of similar stands in the very same stadium, then, there would have been an occasion for the respondents to take the stand that the very anticipation of the approval by the petitioner is without any base. Therefore, the objection raised by the respondents that the petitioner should not have commenced the construction of new stands in anticipation of the approvals, cannot stand before us, applying the principle of legitimate expectation. 12. Further, it is also seen from voluminous material available on record that the CMDA addressed a letter as early as on 13.2.2012, seeking the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic) to be given for the construction within a month's time and it has also been mentioned that failing to give the recommendation would be deemed as 'no objection' to the applicant. The time fixed by CMDA came to an end by 14.3.2012. But, no reply was offered by the Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic). Therefore, in the real sense and spirit of the letter dated 13.2.2012, the CMDA should have treated that there is no objection on the part of the Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic) for the construction. However, for the reasons best known to the officials at the helm of affairs, the CMDA has once again addressed communication dated 2.5.2012 to the Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic) to offer his remarks and recommendation on permissibility of the proposal within a month's time, failing which it was mentioned therein that, it would be presumed that there was no objection. In spite of the second deadline of 30 days given by the CMDA, the Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic) did not furnish any objection within the time limit and only by the letter dated 11.6.2012, the Additional Commissioner of Police, declined to give NOC from the traffic point of view on account of certain queries raised therein. The Additional Commissioner has, unnecessarily sat on the letter of the CMDA from 13.2.2012 to 11.6.2012, in spite of the fact that CMDA has required him to offer his remarks within a time frame. It shows the scant regard of the Additional Commissioner of Police to the highest authority on the subject/the CMDA, thus keeping the petitioner on tenterhooks. 13. Coming to the aspect of objections raised by the Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic), he has declined NoC from the traffic point of view on account of the following: i) Only 1271 two wheeler parking space, as against the requirement 2177 for 'I', 'J' and 'K' stands after constructing multi-level car parking (MLCP); ii) applicant/petitioner to provide one more gate with 5 mt. width on Wallajah Road; iii) provision of 147 cars in Mass Rapid Transport System (MRTS) parking area and 610 cars in Victoria Hostel Parking area had been made by the petitioner, for which lease agreement etc. had not been produced. 14. It is surprising to note from the materials placed on record that CMDA by their letter dated 11.7.2012 addressed to the Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic) has stated that the requirement as per the Development Control Rules for two wheeler parking was only 930 numbers and not 2177. In fact, the petitioner produced before the CMDA the permission granted by both the Southern Railway as well as the Government Victoria Hostel to use their lands for car parking of sufficient number, as a result of which, the CMDA has requested the Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic) to issue NoC. However, even though there is clear availability of additional car parking space arranged by the petitioner for use on match days and even though the use of both MRTS land as well as Victoria Hostel land for this purpose by the petitioner, seems to be well within the knowledge of the Additional Commissioner of Police, he has passed the order dated 25.8.2012 declining to grant NoC. While declining to grant NoC, the Additional Commissioner of Police has failed to appreciate the fact that the MLCP structure is subject matter of the proposed construction, after the demolition of the entire balance portion of the stadium, including the existing pavilion and Madras Cricket Club Structure and that is the reason why the petitioner had continued with its arrangement with the Southern Railway and Government Victoria Hostel to permit parking on match days to the satisfaction of CMDA. In view of this, imposition of such a condition that the stands 'I', 'J' and 'K' should not be used until and unless further construction of MLCP is made, without considering the fact that the petitioner has made alternate sufficient arrangement for car parking is nothing but arbitrary and illegal besides being passed without application of mind. Therefore, we have no hesitation to set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of police (Traffic), Chennai, dated 25.8.2012, impugned in W.P.No.32681 of 2012, thus allowing the said writ petition. 15. It is also seen from the records that pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, the stands 'I', 'J' and 'K' were thrown open to the public for a play off game as well as the IPL final and no untoward incident of any sort, has been reported before us by any of the respondents. This would undoubtedly disprove the apprehensions expressed on the part of the respondents and as such, we have also no hesitation to hold that the 'lock and seal' order passed by the Commissioner of Corporation of Chennai is also not sustainable in law, since lacks judicious consideration of the facts and circumstances. Therefore, W.P.No.13765 of 2012 is also entitled to be allowed. 16. With regard to W.P.No.24651 of 2012, since it is seen that the application for consent made by the petitioner has been returned on 10.9.2012 by the Pollution Control Board with a request to re-submit the same with some additional particulars and since the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner also seeks some time for compliance of the same, we direct that the petitioner shall re-submit his application within a period of one week from today and the respondents are directed to dispose of the same within a period of six weeks thereafter, in accordance with law and keeping in view the observations and findings of this court in the above paragraphs. In the result, W.P.Nos.13765 and 32681 of 2012 are allowed and W.P.No.24651 of 2012 is disposed of in the manner stated supra. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.