Judgment 1. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the refusal of the Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic) to grant a no objection certificate for the grant of premium FSI in respect of a proposal for putting up multi-storeyed buildings. 2. Heard Mr. R. Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr. R. Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the second respondent. 3. The petitioner undertook the project of development of a land at door Nos.100, 101 and 102 of Poonamallee High Road where a hotel by name "DASAPRAKASH" was located earlier. The project was to put up construction of multi-storeyed buildings. The total extent of land, in which, the property is comprised is about 36 grounds and 1431 sq.ft. Since the property is located in an area abutting the Metro Rail Project, the petitioner first applied for a no objection certificate to Chennai Metro Rail Limited. By an order dated 2.4.2011, the petitioner was granted no objection certificate for the construction of combined double basement floor together with three blocks of buildings, with Block A comprising of a stilt and 19 floors, Block B comprising of a stilt and 18 floors and Block C comprising of a stilt and 19 floors. The no objection certificate was subject to certain conditions, about which, we are not now concerned. 4. The Airport Authority of India also gave a no objection certificate on 27.10.2011 in so far as the height of the buildings is concerned. The second respondent also gave a no objection certificate on 15.11.2011, subject to certain conditions, about which, the petitioner has no grievance. 5. Based upon the above no objection certificates, the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter called the CMDA) processed the application of the petitioner and granted a planning permission bearing No.7162 dated 14.12.2012, valid for a period of three years upto 13.12.2015. The planning permission was actually for the construction of a common triple basement floor, together with a common stilt floor, first floor and two towers with 2nd floor to 17th floor each for residential purpose with 101 dwelling units. 6. The Air Force Station, Tambaram gave a letter dated 22.12.2012 indicating that a no objection certificate from the Indian Air Force is not necessary, since the proposed construction was outside the area. 7. 6. The Air Force Station, Tambaram gave a letter dated 22.12.2012 indicating that a no objection certificate from the Indian Air Force is not necessary, since the proposed construction was outside the area. 7. Therefore, in pursuance of the planning permission granted by the CMDA, the Corporation of Chennai also granted building permission on 8.3.2013, upon payment of necessary charges. The petitioner also paid a sum of Rs.38,50,600/-. Since the construction was for a large number of dwelling units, an application was also made to the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (hereinafter called the SLEIAA). After assessing the daily requirement of fresh water and the provision for recycling and gardening as well as solid waste generation, the SLEIAA also accorded environmental clearance by their proceedings dated 15.4.2013 subject to certain conditions. Thereafter, the Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board granted consent on 8.10.2013. 8. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application on 21.10.2013 for availing the benefit of premium FSI. It is relevant to note at this stage that the original application was for a FSI of 2.5 and the premium FSI, to which, the petitioner made a claim was 3.5. If premium FSI was granted, the number of dwelling units was to go up from 101 to 155. 9. Upon receipt of the application for premium FSI, together with necessary fees and enclosures, the matter was referred to the Director of Fire and Rescue Services. By his proceedings dated 9.11.2013, the Director of Fire and Rescue Services granted no objection certificate. Therefore, the CMDA sent the proposals to the second respondent herein namely the Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic) on 6.12.2013 for his specific remarks and recommendation on the permissibility of the proposal. In paragraph 2 of the letter dated 6.12.2013 sent by the CMDA to the Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic), it was stated as follows: "I am to request you to kindly offer your specific remarks and recommendations on permissibility of the proposal within a month's time, failing which, it will be presumed that there is no objection on the above planning permission application." 10. After the expiry of the time of one month stipulated in the letter dated 6.12.2013, the 221st Meeting of the Multi-Storeyed Building Panel was held under the chairmanship of the Member Secretary of the first respondent, on 8.1.2014. After the expiry of the time of one month stipulated in the letter dated 6.12.2013, the 221st Meeting of the Multi-Storeyed Building Panel was held under the chairmanship of the Member Secretary of the first respondent, on 8.1.2014. The Panel comprised of the following persons, who represented the institutions noted against them each : 1. Thiru. R. Venkatesan, IAS, Member Secretary, CMDA Chairman 2. Thiru A. Arun, I.P.S., Joint Commissioner of Police (North) Representing - Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic) 3. Dr. S. Rajasekarapandian, Chief Urban Planner, MSB (APU), CMDA Member – Convener 4. Thiru P. Saravanakumar, Divisional Officer (South) DF&RS Representing - Director, DF & RS, Egmore, Chennai-8. 5. Tmt. P.R. Sumithra, Executive Engineer, O/o JCEE(M), Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board Representing Member Secretary - Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai. 6. Thiru K. Mohan, Executive Engineer P&D Wing, CMWSSB Representing - Engineering Director, CMWSSB, Chennai. 7. Thiru A.R. Ilavazhagan, Executive Engineer, TNEB, Distribution (South), Adyar Representing - the Chief Engineer, TNEB Distribution (South), Chennai 8. Thiru G. Mageshkumar, Executive Engineer, TNEB, O&M (North), Egmore Representing the Chief Engineer, TNEB Distribution (North), Chennai 9. Thiru R. Rajendrran, Assistant Executive Engineer, Corporation of Chennai Representing Chief Engineer, Corporation of Chennai 11. The proposal of the petitioner for the grant of premium FSI was taken as Agenda Item No.12 in the said meeting and the Panel decided to recommend the proposal to the Government for approval. It was specifically noted in the minutes of the meeting that the proposal satisfied the Development Rules. Though the Joint Commissioner of Police (North), who represented the Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic), was present in the said meeting and though the time limit of one month stipulated by the CMDA for the Traffic Police to submit their remarks had already expired, the ultimate decision of the Multi Storeyed Building Panel was to insist on a no objection certificate from Traffic Police. The Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic), who was represented at the meeting, could have recorded his objection in the meeting itself. I do not know why he did not raise any issue at that time. 12. On 21.1.2014, the CMDA again wrote to the second respondent to offer their remarks with regard to the request for premium FSI. Simultaneously, the Member Secretary of the CMDA also wrote to the Government seeking approval for the recommendations of the Multi Storeyed Building Panel. 13. 12. On 21.1.2014, the CMDA again wrote to the second respondent to offer their remarks with regard to the request for premium FSI. Simultaneously, the Member Secretary of the CMDA also wrote to the Government seeking approval for the recommendations of the Multi Storeyed Building Panel. 13. By letter bearing Ms.No.99 Housing and Urban Development dated 16.6.2014, the Government also granted approval for the recommendation of the Multi Storeyed Building Panel, subject to two conditions namely (a) the rectification of drafting errors in the revised plan; and (b) the issue of no objection certificate by the Traffic Police. 14. But, by the impugned order dated 24.7.2014, the second respondent refused no objection certificate, purportedly from the traffic point of view. The reason stated in the impugned order is that the vehicle flow at E.V.R. Salai is exceeding Indian Road Congress Norms (hereinafter referred to as the IRC Norms) during morning and evening peak hours in both directions and that the additional vehicle volume generated by this project with 51 cars and 132 motor cycles would impede the movement of traffic. Therefore, aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. 15. The CMDA filed a counter affidavit. The Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic), who is the second respondent herein, has filed an independent counter affidavit. 16. In the counter affidavit filed by the CMDA, it is stated that the Multi Storeyed Building Panel recommended the proposal of the petitioner in its 221st Meting held on 8.1.2014 subject to two conditions, one of which was to obtain no objection certificate from the Traffic Police. In response to the contention of the petitioner that there is no statutory requirement for obtaining a no objection certificate from the Traffic Police, it is stated by the CMDA, in paragraph 11 of its counter affidavit, that though it is not a statutory requirement, it is stipulated as part of the Development Regulations. 17. But, I do not really understand what the CMDA seeks to convey in paragraph 11 of its counter affidavit. A requirement will be construed as a statutory requirement, if it is stipulated either in the principal or in the subordinate legislation. Either the Town and Country Planning Act or the Development Control Rules, 2004 or the Development Regulations 2008, should contain a prescription for obtaining a no objection certificate from the Traffic Police. A requirement will be construed as a statutory requirement, if it is stipulated either in the principal or in the subordinate legislation. Either the Town and Country Planning Act or the Development Control Rules, 2004 or the Development Regulations 2008, should contain a prescription for obtaining a no objection certificate from the Traffic Police. Alternatively, the requirement should be in the form of executive instructions issued in exercise of a power conferred by the Rules or the Regulations. The CMDA does not quote any such provision in paragraph 11 of the counter. 18. However, in paragraph 13 of their counter affidavit, the CMDA has relied upon G.O.Ms.No.163 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 9.6.2009, which mandates a no objection certificate from Traffic Police, whenever an application for the use of premium FSI is made. But, the power under which the said Government Order was issued, is not known. 19. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent (Traffic Commissioner), it is claimed that by a letter bearing No.14561/UD1/10-2 dated 21.7.2010, instructions have been given to the CMDA to obtain a no objection certificate from the Traffic Police. The second respondent has also relied upon the Government letter in Ms.No.99 dated 16.6.2014 whereby approval was granted to the petitioner for the use of premium FSI. The approval was granted subject to obtaining a no objection certificate from the Traffic Police. Therefore, the second respondent claims that his refusal to issue no objection certificate is authorised by law. The second respondent has also placed reliance upon the IRC Norms, in support of his decision to reject the proposal. 20. Before considering the rival contentions, it is necessary to take a look at the statutory provisions that regulate the construction of buildings in Chennai Metropolitan Area. Though the right to property has ceased to be a fundamental right, it is nevertheless a constitutional right under Article 300A of The Constitution and it is also considered as a human right. Therefore, the restriction on the right of a person to develop a property in a manner he considers fit and proper, for maximising his advantages and profits, should be borne out of statutory regulations in larger public interest. Therefore, the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the second respondent to refuse no objection certificate has to be tested only on the touchstone of the statutory provisions. Therefore, the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the second respondent to refuse no objection certificate has to be tested only on the touchstone of the statutory provisions. Hence, let me take a look at the relevant provisions of the Act, the Rules and the Regulations. 21. The source of power of the Government to regulate the construction of buildings in the City of Chennai can be traced to the provisions of the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 apart from the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. The object of this Act is to provide for planning the development and use of rural and urban land in the State of Tamilnadu. Section 17(1) of the Act obliges the Local Planning Authority, after the declaration of a local planning area under Section 10 and after the constitution of the appropriate planning authority under Section 11, to prepare and submit to the Government, a plan known as Master Plan. Sub-Section (2) of Section 17 gives a list of matters, for which, provision may be made in the Master Plan. One of the matters mentioned in Clause (e) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 17 is 'the traffic and transportation pattern and traffic circulation pattern'. Another matter provided in Clause (l) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 17 is the provision for regulating the zone, location, height, number of storeys and size of buildings and other structures, the size of yards and other open spaces and the use of buildings, structures and land. 22. Under Section 17 of the Act, no person other than any State Government or Central Government or any Local Authority shall use any land or carry out any development in an area, after the coming into operation of any development plan in any area otherwise than in conformity with such development plan. Under Section 47A, any person intending to carry out any development of any land in an area other than planning area, shall make an application to the Local Authority for permission. Under Section 48, no person other than any State Government or Central Government or Local Authority, shall erect any building on or after the publication of the resolution under Section 19(2), except with the written permission of the appropriate Planning Authority and in accordance with the conditions specified therein. Under Section 48, no person other than any State Government or Central Government or Local Authority, shall erect any building on or after the publication of the resolution under Section 19(2), except with the written permission of the appropriate Planning Authority and in accordance with the conditions specified therein. An application for permission to carry out any development on any land or building should be made as provided for by the Rules, by virtue of Section 49. Every permission for development granted under Section 49 will remain in force in terms of Section 50 for a period of three years from the date of such permission. 23. Chapter XII of the Act, which contains miscellaneous provisions, has an interesting provision. Section 96 of the Act, which forms part of Chapter XII, enlists the duties of Police Officers. The duties imposed by Section 96 upon the Police Officers are as follows: (i) To cooperate with the Planning Authority for carrying into effect and enforcing the provisions of the Act or any Rule or Regulation; (ii) To communicate to the proper Officer of the Planning Authority any information relating to a design to commit or the commission of any offence; and (iii) To assist the Planning Authority whenever a demand for the aid of the Police Officer is made. 24. Section 105 of the Act declares that the provisions of the Act will override the provisions of any other law, custom, usage or contract to the extent it is inconsistent. 25. Section 122(1) of the Act empowers the Government to make rules. Sub-Section (2) of Section 122 gives the list of the matters, for which, provision may be made in the rules. The rules made under Section 122(1) are required to be published in the Government Gazette in terms of Section 123. Section 124(1) confers power upon the Planning Authority with the previous approval of the Government to make regulations whether prospectively or retrospectively, to enable it to perform its functions under the Act. 26. As mandated by the Act, the CMDA appears to have carried out necessary surveys and studies and prepared the master plan for Chennai Metropolitan Area in 1975. The Government approved it in G.O.Ms.No.2395 Rural Development and Local Administration dated 4.12.1976. Thereafter, the grant of planning permission within the Chennai Metropolitan Area got regulated in accordance with the Development Control Rules forming part of the Master Plan. The Government approved it in G.O.Ms.No.2395 Rural Development and Local Administration dated 4.12.1976. Thereafter, the grant of planning permission within the Chennai Metropolitan Area got regulated in accordance with the Development Control Rules forming part of the Master Plan. Rule 1 of these Rules mandated written permission of the Authority to carry out any development. The method of obtaining permission is indicated in Rule 2. Under Rule 3(b), all the developments are regulated with reference to the land use classifications indicated in the Table given under Rule 3(b). Rule 5(1) stipulates that the proposed rights of way for all major roads together with set back lines for them shall be in accordance with the details specified in Annexure IV. 27. Rule 17(a) prescribes that multi storeyed buildings, buildings exceeding four floors and/or 15 metres in height, shall not be permitted in areas prohibited for such constructions. The construction of these multi storeyed buildings should also conform to 'Special Rules for Multi Storeyed Building', given in Annexure IX. The note under Rule 17 stipulates that when a building abuts on more than one road, the maximum permissible height of such buildings shall be computed with reference to the wider road provided that the maximum depth of plot which such height is permissible, shall be limited to 25 metres from the building line of the wider road. Rule 19 deals with layout and sub-division. Clause (b) of Rule 19 deals with Special Buildings and Group Developments. The expression 'Special Building' is defined to mean a residential or commercial building with more than two floors or a residential building with more than four dwelling units. Similarly, the expression 'Group Developments' is defined to mean accommodation for residential or commercial or a combination of such activities housed in two or more blocks of buildings in a particular site. Certain requirements are stipulated under Part II of Rule 19 with regard to group developments. 28. Annexure IX to the Development Control Rules, 2004 contains a set of 'Special Rules for Multi Storeyed Buildings'. These rules prescribe the site extent, road width, floor space index and plot coverage, set back spaces, height of the building, parking and parking facilities, etc. Certain requirements are stipulated under Part II of Rule 19 with regard to group developments. 28. Annexure IX to the Development Control Rules, 2004 contains a set of 'Special Rules for Multi Storeyed Buildings'. These rules prescribe the site extent, road width, floor space index and plot coverage, set back spaces, height of the building, parking and parking facilities, etc. Rule 9 of these Rules states that in so far as determination of sufficiency of all aspects of structural designs, building services, etc., are concerned, the specifications, standards and code of practices recommended in the National Building Code of India shall be fully conformed to. 29. Rule 15 of these Rules contained in Annexure IX envisages the scrutiny of a building plan for the construction of multi storeyed buildings by a Panel comprising of several persons including the Joint Commissioner of Police (Traffic). Rule 15 reads as follows: The plan shall be scrutinised and forwarded to the Government, with recommendation of a Panel comprising of the following members for approval : (i) Member-Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority - Chairman; (ii) Chief Planner, Area Plans Unit, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority - Member; (iii) Chief Engineer, Corporation of Chennai - Member; (iv) Director of Fire Services - Member; (v) Engineering Director, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewage Board - Member; (vi) Chief Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board - Member; (vii) Joint Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Chennai - Member; and (viii) Senior Planner, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority - Member Convenor. 1. Any suggestions or alterations recommended by the Panel and approved by the Government shall be incorporated in the plans. 2. For Annexure X referred to in Sub-Rule (a)17, the following annexures will be substituted." 30. Annexure X of the aforesaid Rules contains two parts with Part A indicating the areas where multi storeyed construction will be permitted within the Chennai City limits excluding certain areas and Part B indicating special areas. In Part A of Annexure X, the areas bounded by two arms of Coovum River starting near Park Station to the mouth of Coovum (Napier Bridge) jointly known as Island Grounds, are excluded from construction of multi storeyed buildings. Similarly, the approved residential layouts except such plots, which have been reserved for construction of multi storeyed buildings are also excluded. In Part A of Annexure X, the areas bounded by two arms of Coovum River starting near Park Station to the mouth of Coovum (Napier Bridge) jointly known as Island Grounds, are excluded from construction of multi storeyed buildings. Similarly, the approved residential layouts except such plots, which have been reserved for construction of multi storeyed buildings are also excluded. In Part B of Annexure X, a list of areas where the Government may permit multi storeyed commercial buildings with a maximum floor space index of 2.75 in the special area falling within 60 metres on either side of the roads are indicated as special areas. One of the areas so mentioned is Periyar E.V.R. Salai upto Coovum River. 31. Therefore, it is clear from Annexure IX and Annexure X read with reference to Rule 19 of the Development Control Rules that the area, in which, the petitioner sought permission to come up with group buildings and multi storeyed buildings, is not an excluded area. There is also no separate rule requiring clearance from the point of view of traffic. All that has been done by the Rules is to constitute a Special Committee by name Multi Storeyed Building Panel to decide whether permission should be granted or not. This Panel is to comprise of 8 Members, one of whom is the Joint Commissioner of Police. The note under Rule 15 of the Annexure IX Rules under the Development Control Rules, 2004, which deals with the constitution of the Multi Storeyed Building Panel, indicates that all suggestions from all Departments are to be considered by the Panel. But, the ultimate decision to recommend approval vests with the Panel. The decision taken by the Panel is to be a reflection of the collective wisdom of the entire Panel. 32. Once a representative from the Traffic Police Department is included as part of a Multi Member Expert Panel, it is incumbent upon the representative to put forth his view points in the meetings of the Panel. By the force of his representation, the representative may be able to carry the other Members of the Panel along with him, so that the Panel arrives at an informed decision. Since it is a Multi Member Panel, the Panel may even choose to reject any suggestion or objection of any single Member. By the force of his representation, the representative may be able to carry the other Members of the Panel along with him, so that the Panel arrives at an informed decision. Since it is a Multi Member Panel, the Panel may even choose to reject any suggestion or objection of any single Member. But, what has unfortunately happened in this case is that instead of taking a collective decision about the case of the petitioner for approval, the entire Panel has surrendered its decision making power, to the Traffic Police. In other words, the collective wisdom of the Panel is now replaced by the individual wisdom of one member of the Panel. This is not what is contemplated by the Rules. 33. As stated earlier, under the second master plan for Chennai Metropolitan Area, a set of regulations known as Development Regulations, 2008 were issued and they were approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.190 Housing and Urban Development dated 2.9.2008. The Regulations were notified in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette dated 2.9.2008. 34. Regulation 5 states that there shall be no developments in contravention of these Regulations. Regulation 8 stipulates that the proposed right of way for all major roads together with set back lines for them shall be in accordance with the details specified in Annexure IV. Regulation 9 speaks about Transferable Development Rights. Under Sub-Regulation (2) of Regulation 9, it is stipulated that Transferable Development Rights shall apply to cases where a private land is required for any traffic or transport infrastructure developments. Regulations 14 to 23 deal with primary residential use zone, mixed residential use zone, commercial use zone, industrial use zone, special and hazardous industrial use zone, institutional use zone, open space and recreational use zone, urbanizable use zone, non- urban use zone and agricultural use zone. 35. Regulation 24 of these Regulations contains prescriptions for areas for buildings of special character. Clause (a) of Sub-Regulation (1) of Regulation 24 stipulates that multi storeyed buildings are permissible only in the areas specifically declared as multi storeyed building areas and that the details of these areas are provided in Annexure IX. Regulation 24 also indicates what are ecologically sensitive areas, what are areas prohibited for development and areas of special character such as MRTS influence area, IT corridor area, area around Airport, natural hazard prone area, green belt area, etc. 36. Regulation 24 also indicates what are ecologically sensitive areas, what are areas prohibited for development and areas of special character such as MRTS influence area, IT corridor area, area around Airport, natural hazard prone area, green belt area, etc. 36. Regulation 25 contains several tables, which indicate how the extent of site, plot coverage, floor space index, set back, etc., for developments are regulated. There are about nine tables under Regulation 25, each dealing with different types of buildings. Special buildings are not covered by any one of these tables. 37. However, Regulation 26 deals with special buildings. Regulation 26(1) defines a special building to mean a residential or commercial building with more than two floors or a residential building with more than six dwelling units or a commercial building exceeding a floor area of 300 sq. metres. Sub-Regulation (2) of Regulation 26 indicates the minimum width of the public road, on which the site for a special building abuts. There are several stipulations in Regulation 26, which deal with developments with dwelling units exceeding 100 in number. For instance, Clause (21) of Regulation 26 mandates installation of a waste management infrastructure and a closed non polluting storage provision for solid waste storage where the residential/predominantly residential developments with dwelling units exceeding 100 in number are undertaken. Similarly, there is a requirement for a storage treatment plant, whenever the number of dwelling units exceeds 50. 38. Regulation 27 deals with group developments. The expression 'group developments' is defined in Sub-Regulation (1) to mean accommodation for residential or commercial or combination of such activities housed in two or more blocks of buildings in a particular site irrespective of whether these structures are inter-connected or not. The Regulation mandates that the minimum width of the public road on which the site abuts or gains access shall be 10 metres. A set of requirements are stipulated in this Regulation for undertaking a group development. Sub-Regulation (17) allows 10% of the floor area of the building at lower habitable floor levels to be put to incidental uses for the occupants of the building, if the residential development exceeds 100 dwelling units. Similarly, Sub-Regulation (21) provides for the installation of a waste management infrastructure and a closed non polluting storage provision for solid waste storage, if the number of dwelling units exceeds 100. Similarly, Sub-Regulation (21) provides for the installation of a waste management infrastructure and a closed non polluting storage provision for solid waste storage, if the number of dwelling units exceeds 100. Sub-Regulations (22) and (23) deal with the requirement to set apart such road spaces within the site and the execution of a registered gift deed, whenever it is necessary in the interests of the public for better circulation in the area and to ensure that the proposed development does not block access to the properties around, whenever large developments are proposed in places where link roads have to be provided for connectivity to the adjoining areas. 39. Regulation 28 contains Special Rules for multi storeyed buildings. Under Sub-Regulation (1), the minimum extent of site for construction of multi storeyed buildings shall not be less than 1500 sq.metres and the site should either abut on a road of not less than 18 metres in width or gain access from public road not less than 18 metres in width. There are provisions in these Rules, which deal with parking and parking facilities, vehicular access within the site, corridor width, reservation of land for community recreational purposes, etc. Sub-Regulation (9) of Regulation 28 mandates that all aspects such as structural designs, building services, etc., shall conform to the National Building Code of India. Sub-Regulation (10) deals with fire safety, detection and extinguishing systems. As in the case of special buildings and group developments, Regulation 28, which deals with multi storeyed buildings, also mandates installation of water management infrastructure and a closed non polluting storage provision for solid waste storage. Regulations 21 to 25 read with Annexures 19, 23, 22 and 9 deal with rain water harvesting provision, solar energy capture provision, regulations for physically disabled, etc. 40. Sub-Regulation (26) of Regulation 28 mandates that the plan for the construction of a multi storeyed building shall be scrutinised and forwarded to Government with the recommendation of a Panel comprising of about 9 members. 40. Sub-Regulation (26) of Regulation 28 mandates that the plan for the construction of a multi storeyed building shall be scrutinised and forwarded to Government with the recommendation of a Panel comprising of about 9 members. They are as follows: "(i) Principal Secretary, CMDA - Chairman; (ii) Director of Fire and Rescue Services; (iii) Engineering Director, CMWSSB - Member; (iv) Chief Engineer of the Corporation at Chennai - Member; (v) Chief Engineer of TNEB - Member; (vi) Chief Planner, CMDA - Member; (vii) Joint Commissioner of Police (Traffic) - Member; (viii) Concerned Engineer from the Local Body (other than the Corporation - Special Invitee); and (ix) Senior Planner, CMDA - Member Convener." 41. Interestingly, at the bottom of Sub-Regulation (26) of Regulation 28, there is a stipulation, which is identically worded as Note-1 under Rule 15 of the Annexure IX Rules of the Development Control Rules, 2004. It reads as follows : 42. Regulation 36 of the Development Regulations, 2008 deals with premium FSI. Under this Regulation, premium FSI shall be allowed in specific areas as may be notified subject to guidelines and on collection of charge at the rates prescribed by the Authority with the approval of the Government. The extent to which premium FSI can be allowed depends upon the road width and it is indicated in the table under Regulation 36. 43. From a careful perusal of the Development Regulations, 2008, it is clear that these Regulations also do not stipulate, as one of the pre-conditions, a no objection certificate from the Joint Commissioner of Police, Traffic. Nevertheless, he is included as a Member of the Panel, which is empowered to scrutinise the application for construction of a multi storeyed building, to ensure that all stake holders, have a say. No individual is given the power to veto the decision taken by the majority in the Panel. Therefore, I do not know how, after convening a meeting of the Multi Storeyed Building Panel, comprising of several members including the representative of the second respondent, the Panel could make its decision subject to clearance from one of its own members. 44. Though the Development Regulations contain about 27 annexures and they also contain a set of guidelines for the grant of premium FSI, nothing is found even in these guidelines, which empower the Joint Commissioner of Police to have the last laugh in the matter. 45. 44. Though the Development Regulations contain about 27 annexures and they also contain a set of guidelines for the grant of premium FSI, nothing is found even in these guidelines, which empower the Joint Commissioner of Police to have the last laugh in the matter. 45. If the second respondent has had any objection to the grant of approval, the same could have been put forth in the meeting of the Panel. If the Panel had agreed with the objections of the second respondent, they could have rejected the application. It was also possible for the Panel to overrule the objections of the second respondent in total or accept it to a limited extent and incorporate some conditions that will take care of the objections. But, now, all these possibilities are gone, with the Panel subordinating its own role to the role of one of its members and that too, after the completion of the proceedings in the meeting of the Panel. This, in my considered view, is not authorised either by the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act or by the Development Control Rules, 2004 or by the Development Regulations, 2008. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. 46. There are also two more issues. The petitioner has already obtained permission for the construction of 101 dwelling units. If the construction of 54 more units alone is the cause for concern, I do not know whether any development in the entire stretch of the road is going to be prohibited on this ground. Moreover, the impugned order proceeds on the basis that the addition of 54 more dwelling units will increase the traffic flow during peak hours, by 31 cars and 132 motor cycles. But, it does not take into account the possible reduction of traffic flow after the MRTS comes into operation fully and finally. Today, there are no guidelines either in the Act or in the Development Control Rules or the Development Regulations as to how far the traffic flow would impact development. Unless there are guidelines, it is not proper for the experts in the Panel to leave it entirely to the discretion of the traffic police, to switch, on and off, the signal lights, on projects for development. Unless there are guidelines, it is not proper for the experts in the Panel to leave it entirely to the discretion of the traffic police, to switch, on and off, the signal lights, on projects for development. The conferment of such an unguided power upon a single member of a multi member panel, will infringe upon the valuable Constitutional right to property, without there being a sanction of law for the exercise of such power. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for. 47. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No costs. Consequently, the above MPs are closed. "Any suggestions or alterations recommended by the Panel and approved by the Government shall be incorporated in the plans."