Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 955 (MAD)

S. A. Gunasekaran v. Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Madras

2015-02-17

M.VENUGOPAL, SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2015
Judgment :- Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. Mr. G. Anantharangan, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice for the respondents. 2.The petitioner has primarily sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on his representation dated 06.01.2015 in accordance with law and on merits, which arose from the orders dated 29.09.2014 and 28.11.2014 passed by the Corporation authorities. 3. By order dated 29.09.2014 issued under Section 56 read with Section 85 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”), the petitioner was called upon to restore the land in question to its condition within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The petitioner was again issued a de-occupation notice under Section 56(2)(iii) and 2A of the Act on 28.11.2014, calling upon him to discontinue the occupation of the premises within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. 4. It appears that the petitioner has not responded either to the first notice dated 29.09.2014 or to the subsequent notice dated 28.11.2014. After about 40 days, the petitioner makes a representation on 06.01.2015, seeking a direction to the authorities to permit him to remove the deviations. After filing a representation belatedly, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition to defeat the very object of lock and seal notice dated 29.09.2014 and the subsequent de-occupation notice dated 28.11.2014. This is tantamount to perpetuation of the illegality perpetrated by the petitioner. 5. At this stage, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the case. Once a notice has been issued under Section 56(2)(iii) and 2A of the Act, the only course open to the petitioner is either to approach the appellate authority under the provisions of law or to restore the premises to its original position. But, the petitioner has failed to do either. 6. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the writ petition is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.