JUDGMENT : “In olden days, the profession of a Doctor was highly regarded as sacred/noble one and in the present era, People see the Private Doctors as notorious villains, joyfully existing in this country. The role of such villains in the society has become inevitable and they also grew like mushrooms, as Governments have pulled out their hands from their social responsibilities of providing free medical aid to its citizens, by poor budgetary allocations and it has lead to dismal state of Government hospitals. The private hospitals are meant only for rich people, who afford to pay more money and the more one values a good or service, the more he or she is willing to pay for it. With the amount looted from public, Private Hospitals construct sky touching buildings. The Private Hospitals, which lost its sacredness, cannot be furthermore termed as Hospitals, but are only corporate centres and share markets.” The present case is a classic example and revolves around the illegality committed by the Hospital Authorities, who, though obtained a plan for constructing three floors, had constructed 9 floors unauthorizedly. Whether they constructed such floors with black money or white money or they have sufficient source for raising such floors, is for the Income Tax Department to ascertain actual position. Ultimately, the entire expenses incurred by them will fall on the head of innocent public, who approach them for medical emergency. There is a joke generally going on that on seeing the construction being carried on in a hospital, the patient, who visits the hospital frequently for some ailment, proudly said “I have indirectly contributed much for construction of this portion of the building by frequently visiting the hospital and paying several lakhs of rupees”. According to a French saying, when money speaks, the truth will be silent and the said saying is more aptly applicable to this case. 2. Mr. R. Govindasamy, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for R1 to R3. Mr.P.S.Ganesh, learned counsel takes notice for R4. Mr.G.Anantharangan, learned counsel takes notice for R5. Mr.K.V.Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel takes notice for R9. Notice to respondents 6 to 8 returnable in four weeks. Private notice is also permitted and the same has to be despatched within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3. The petitioner has come forward, pointing out the illegal construction made by the 9th respondent. Mr.K.V.Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel takes notice for R9. Notice to respondents 6 to 8 returnable in four weeks. Private notice is also permitted and the same has to be despatched within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3. The petitioner has come forward, pointing out the illegal construction made by the 9th respondent. According to the petitioner, the building plan has been sanctioned for basement, ground + 3 floors, for which Electricity supply was accorded and lift licence was also granted upto the 3rd floor. The 9th respondent has also paid property tax upto the 3rd floor till the year 2008 and only in the year 2009, the enhanced property tax upto 8 floors have been paid. The very fact that the property tax has been paid in the year 2009 clearly shows that there was no building beyond 3rd floor upto 2009 and illegal constructions have been made thereafter to enable the 9th respondent to pay the property tax. It is further submitted that the petitioner has made a representation about the illegal construction and approached this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition in W.P No.4164 of 2019, in which, this Court had passed an order dated 12.03.2019, observing that the representation of the petitioner has already been disposed of and the relevant paragraphs 2 & 3 are extracted below: “2. When the matter is taken up hearing, it is the grievance of the petitioner that his representation dated 11.01.2019 was not considered by the first respondent. However, the learned Government Pleader (i/c) submitted that the representation of the petitioner dated 11.01.2019 was considered by the first respondent and an order was also passed on 21.02.2019. The learned Government Pleader (i/c) also produced a copy of the order dated 21.02.2019. From the said order, it is clear that the first respondent has already considered the petitioner's representation dated 11.01.2019. 3. Since the petitioner's representation has been considered by the first respondent, no further direction need be passed in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No costs.” 4. It is apposite to state here that no illegal construction beyond the plan that has been sanctioned can be maintained without the able support of the officials and the refusal to remove the illegal construction clearly shows that there are chances of collusion between the Officials and the 9th respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No costs.” 4. It is apposite to state here that no illegal construction beyond the plan that has been sanctioned can be maintained without the able support of the officials and the refusal to remove the illegal construction clearly shows that there are chances of collusion between the Officials and the 9th respondent. When the matter came up for hearing on 09.05.2019, we directed to issue notice to other side for the purpose of consideration of an interim order today. 5. The learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would submit that there is no plan sanctioned beyond 3rd floor and that the Electricity Department has also not given any permission to operate the lift beyond 3rd floor, but by illegally constructing the building, the lift has been operated upto 9th floor. Pursuant to the sole ground of pendency of the regularization application, the present impugned order has been issued for keeping the process of demolition in abeyance. He would further submit that since G.O.Ms.Nos.110 & 111 dated 22.06.2017 were held to be bad by an order of this Court dated 06.02.2019 passed in Contempt Petition No.1087 of 2017 and Writ Petition No.24705 of 2017, which has been subsequently followed by this Division Bench today in the case of B.Mamitha -vs- The Additional Secretary, (Technical), Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009 and others [W.P. No.14211 of 2019], the authorities will take necessary steps to demolish the illegal construction beyond the 3rd floor, as the construction beyond 3rd floor has been made only in the year 2009. Even assuming that the G.O.Ms.Nos.110 & 111 dated 22.06.2017 are in force, the regularisation of the construction can be considered only upto 2007 alone and therefore, the afore stated Government Orders will not in any way inure to the benefits of the 9th Respondent, as the construction beyond 3rd floor in the present case had taken place in the year 2009. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the 9th respondent would submit that there are patients admitted in the hospital and that the constructions have been made beyond 3rd floor and that the regularization application is pending. If any order is passed, it may affect the patients, who are taking treatment in the hospital. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the 9th respondent would submit that there are patients admitted in the hospital and that the constructions have been made beyond 3rd floor and that the regularization application is pending. If any order is passed, it may affect the patients, who are taking treatment in the hospital. It is further submitted that on account of personal vendetta, the present writ petition has been filed and the request of the petitioner has also been considered and disposed of, for which the petitioner was satisfied. But, unfortunately such observation has not been recorded in the order of the First Bench in W.P.No.4164 of 2019 dated 12.03.2019. He further submitted that the present scenario of the existing position in the floors beyond 4th floor may be taken into account, if at all this Court passes any order much less interim order. 7. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 8. It is not in dispute that the 9th respondent has been sanctioned a plan in the year 2003 for construction of a building consisting of basement, ground + 3 floors and not beyond that. However, as could be seen from the impugned order, totally 9 floors have been constructed unauthorizedly and the floor beyond 3rd has not been sanctioned by the Authorities. The regularization application that is said to have been pending cannot be a valid ground as on date, as held by this Court (cited supra). As this Court had already held G.O.Nos.110 and 111 dated 22.06.2017 to be bad in the decision 06.02.2019 (referred to supra) and by us today in W.P. No.14211 of 2019 (supra), it is needless to state that once there is an illegal construction, there cannot be any regularization at all. The communication sent by the CMDA appears to be in collusion with the 9th respondent. They cannot keep the application pending, knowing fully well the fact that there is an illegal construction and that the illegal construction cannot stand in the eye of law. The Government Orders in G.O.Ms.Nos.110 & 111 dated 22.06.2017, which are based upon Section 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971, were declared unconstitutional on 06.02.2019 itself and in the said judgment, the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) was also one of parties to the litigation. 9. The Government Orders in G.O.Ms.Nos.110 & 111 dated 22.06.2017, which are based upon Section 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971, were declared unconstitutional on 06.02.2019 itself and in the said judgment, the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) was also one of parties to the litigation. 9. Having complete knowledge of the fact that as of now, there is no guideline permitting the regularization of the unauthorised construction, the impugned order dated 28.02.2019 stating that the application for regularization under Section 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971 is pending, is prima facie bad in law. That apart, the contention of the Government made in Paragraph No.5 of this order is perfectly valid and there is no reason as to why the CMDA Officials are turning a blind eye and are reluctant in taking action against the 9th Respondent. This Court do not want to observe anything further, but want to leave at that. 10. The reasons on facts make it clear that the 9th respondent was well aware that it had no approved plan for construction beyond the 3rd Floor. Section 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971 was introduced only in the year 2012 and therefore, the 9th respondent's construction beyond 3rd floor i.e beyond the approved plan, could not be regularized. In any event, the building was completed in the year 2009. The Courts cannot be silent spectators for illegal construction and the Courts also cannot be silent spectators, when the illegalities are perpetuated. The Government must state as to what disciplinary action has been taken against the staff from 2010 to 2012, prior to insertion of Section 113-C and as to how many persons were dismissed from service for their misconduct, dereliction of duty, lack of devotion to work, lack of integrity, etc. It is pertinent to state here that the First Bench of this Court (S.K.Kaul, C.J., and R. Mahadevan, J.) in Contempt Petition No.1769 of 2015 and Contempt Petition No.2166 of 2015 (Suo motu), while dealing with a matter pertaining to demolition of the violated portions of a building and decimation of the unauthorised constructions, held as follows: ''4. (a) (b)..... (c) The delinquent officers are brought to book not by mere censure, stoppage of increment, but by more severe consequences like compulsory retirement and dismissal from service. (a) (b)..... (c) The delinquent officers are brought to book not by mere censure, stoppage of increment, but by more severe consequences like compulsory retirement and dismissal from service. We say so, as despite, mammoth amount of unauthorised construction, we are informed that not a single person has suffered the punishment of dismissal from service or even compulsory retirement at least for the last five years.” 11. The locus of the petitioner in instituting the Public Interest litigation cannot be questioned. The petitioner approached this Court twice complaining the illegal construction. This Court has not rejected the writ petitions on the ground of locus rather it directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, which means that the locus of the petitioner to challenge the illegal construction beyond 3rd floor has been accepted by this Court. The objection in the present case challenging the locus of the petitioner, cannot stand in the eye of law. 12. Though the learned counsel for the 9th respondent vehemently contended that the First Bench of this Court, while passing the order dated 12.03.2019, had, in fact, not permitted the petitioner to maintain the petition, a perusal of the said order does not reflect any such finding. The reliance of the earlier observations made by this Court (if any) as stated, cannot guide the present Writ Petition and even assuming that such observation was made in the order, it cannot be denied that the construction of the basement, ground + 3 floors alone is per se authorized, whereas the entire construction beyond 3rd floor is unauthorized. The 9th respondent had ventured the construction without taking permission and therefore, it has to face the consequences and it is the duty cast upon the authorities to ensure that the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act is not violated. The present Public Interest Litigation is maintainable on the reasoning that the duty cast on the respondents has not been properly executed. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Electricity Authority to disconnect the electricity beyond the 3rd floor. Keeping in mind the fact that the patients' interest should be safeguarded, we direct the Electricity Department to disconnect the electricity by 31.05.2019. Since the construction beyond 3rd Floor is illegal, the 9th respondent is restrained from admitting patients beyond 3rd floor, till the disposal of the Writ Petition. Keeping in mind the fact that the patients' interest should be safeguarded, we direct the Electricity Department to disconnect the electricity by 31.05.2019. Since the construction beyond 3rd Floor is illegal, the 9th respondent is restrained from admitting patients beyond 3rd floor, till the disposal of the Writ Petition. We expect the authorities to act in accordance with law honestly and perform the statutory obligations and they shall also prove their honesty and integrity in removing the structure beyond 3rd Floor without disturbing the patients, more so, after 30.05.2019. The 9th respondent must endeavour to shift the patients, who are not in a serious condition in the hospital before 30.05.2019, as the Electricity will be disconnected on 31.05.2019. 14. The contention of the 9th Respondent, that it is a hospital, doing yeoman service to the public, cannot be accepted and though it is a hospital, in our view, it is purely run for the commercial purpose, so as to mint money, without bothering about service to the public. It is apposite to mention that the concerned Officials, who are entrusted with the work of removal of illegal constructions and encroachments, but shirking their responsibility, can merely be construed as traitors of the Nation. No Courts would like to play the role of a Traitor in ordering regularization of illegal constructions and encroachments. 15. Since the Electricity Board has given a communication that they have permitted the 9th respondent to avail the lift upto 3rd floor, we are of the view that Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is necessary to be a party and therefore, the petition for impleadment of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai as 10th respondent was allowed. 16. In order to give finality to the issue, we appoint Mr.T.Mohan, Advocate (Mobile Nos.8056100357/9444454309), 368, New Additional Law Chamber, High Court Building, Chennai, as an Amicus Curiae in this matter, who shall inspect the spot and submit a detailed report. It is needless to say that beyond the permissible Floor, the concerned Officials shall remove all the doors, windows, glasses, toilet seats and bidets, etc., between 31.05.2019 and 02.06.2019 in respect of violated Floors. Beyond 3rd Floor, it should be made as an unusable one. It is needless to say that beyond the permissible Floor, the concerned Officials shall remove all the doors, windows, glasses, toilet seats and bidets, etc., between 31.05.2019 and 02.06.2019 in respect of violated Floors. Beyond 3rd Floor, it should be made as an unusable one. In any event, it shall be demolished without causing any disturbance to the Patients admitted upto the 3rd Floor and periodical inspection shall have to be conducted by the Amicus Curiae to ensure that the Floors beyond 3rd is not clandestinely used by the 9th Respondent. The Amicus Curiae, if available, shall be present on the days of removal and the Principal Secretary/Member Secretary of CMDA, who passed the impugned order dated 25.02.2019, shall supervise the demolition process and also arrange to take photograph and video graph of the same and furnish such details to this Court on the next date of hearing. 17. From the typeset of papers annexed by the Petitioner, it is evident that the 9th respondent has paid the amount of Rs.1,37,304/-, towards half yearly property tax upto 3rd Floor till 01.07.2009 and for the first time on 23.07.2009, the 9th respondent had paid the enhanced amount of Rs.4,53,962/- for the entire building, including the violated portions. Thus, it is clear, there was no building beyond 3rd Floor in existence prior to 23.07.2009 and for the sake of argument if it is taken that G.O.Ms.Nos.110 & 111 dated 22.06.2017 are in force, the regularization of those floors cannot be sought now and therefore, such plea cannot be re-agitated in this case any more. 18. List this matter on 24.06.2019 for filing status report as well as counter by the respondents. In the meanwhile, the 9th Respondent shall also produce the particulars of the patients, who are admitted and discharged as on date beyond the permissible limit.