The Commr.Corporation Of Madurai vs Dr.I.Ismail And Ors

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10002 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 34892/2013]

THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF MADURAI APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

DR. I. ISMAIL AND ORS RESPONDENT(S)

WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.441/2014 IN C.A. NO.10002/2017 @ SLP(C) No.34892/2013

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The Commissioner, Corporation of Madurai is

before this Court, aggrieved by the judgment of the

High Court. The issue pertains to the steps taken by

the Commissioner by proceeding against respondent

No.1 for the alleged construction in violation of the

Rules. The stand taken by Respondent No.1 is that

the construction is as per the permission granted by

the Standing Committee for Town Planning and Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Development Corporation of Madurai. Date: 2017.08.05 12:06:33 IST Reason:

3. It is pointed out by Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned

1 senior counsel appearing for the appellant, under the

Rules, Standing Committee is only the Appellate

Authority in respect of the powers exercised and

orders passed by the Commissioner and, therefore, the

Appellate Authority cannot be the original authority.

4. Be that as it may, when this matter was pending

before this Court, by order dated 4.7.2016, this

Court passed the following order:-

“The Commissioner Corporation of Madurai to file an affidavit within four weeks with regard to the status of the building as to the violations. In case there are violations, can those violations be regularized.”

5. The Commissioner has filed an affidavit in

response to the order referred to above. Paragraph 4

of the affidavit reads as follows:-

“4. It is submitted that these are the violations committed by the 1st Respondents. The Madurai Corporation has powers to grant plan permission for commercial buildings below 2000 sq.ft. and has no powers to regulate any violations noticed. All the powers to regularise the violations are

2 vested with the Director of Town and Country Planning and the Government as per section 4(3) of development control rule in Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. Hence the respondent has to submit an application with the plan to the Director of Town and Country Planning through Madurai Corporation and Madurai Local Planning Authority.”

6. Since the alleged violation is in excess of 2000

sq. ft., it is submitted by the learned senior

counsel for the appellant that the power is only with

the Director, Town and Country Planning.

7. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1,

however, submits that this is a construction of the

year 2012 on a building the ground floor to which was

constructed in the year 1964. Therefore, the alleged

construction on the said ground floor cannot be taken

as a violation in terms of Regulations which have

been issued in the year 2010.

8. This and all other contentions are certainly

available to the respondents to be taken before the

Director, Town and Country Planning. We are informed

that the respondent has already approached the

Director, Town and Country Planning.

9. We direct the Director, Town and Country Planning

3 to consider the appeal filed by Respondent No.1 after

affording an opportunity for hearing to the

respondents as well as the Municipal Corporation and

pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with

law, after adverting to all the contentions taken by

the parties. We make it clear that none of the

observations in the impugned orders shall stand in

the way of the Director, Town and Country Planning

passing an order on merits. Till the orders are

passed by the Director, Town and Country Planning, we

restrain the Municipal Corporation from taking any

coercive steps against the respondent in respect of

the alleged unauthorized construction. We direct the

Director, Town and Country Planning to pass orders

expeditiously, and in any case within six months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

10. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

11. In view of the above order passed in the civil

appeal, we do not find any need to proceed with the

contempt petition.

12. The Contempt Petition No. 441/2014 is,

accordingly, dismissed.

4

13. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

14. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]

.......................J. [R. BANUMATHI] NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 02, 2017.

5

ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.6 SECTION XII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 34892/2013

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-03-2013 in WPC No. 10221/2012 passed by the High Court Of Madras)

THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF MADURAI PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

DR. I. ISMAIL AND ORS RESPONDENT(S)

WITH CONMT.PET.(C) No. 441/2014 In SLP(C) No. 34892/2013

Date : 02-08-2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Sr.Adv.

Mr. S. Nithin,Adv.

Mr. Pranjal Kishore,Adv.

Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra-I, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. G. Balaji, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.

The appeal is disposed of and the contempt petition is dismissed in terms of the signed judgment.

(NARENDRA PRASAD) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER (SH) ASST. REGISTRAR

(Signed “Non-Reportable” Judgment is placed on the file)

6