THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE v. LAKSHMINARAYANANW.P.No

W.P.No.2011 of 2018IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 08.09.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANANW.P.No.2011 of 2018 &WMP.No.2524 of 20181.R.P.Thangavelu2.Deepa3.Nandhani4.Nagarajan5.Devi6.ArunPetitioner 1 to 6 are all represented by their power agent,C.Balasubramanian, S/o.Late Chairmakani... Petitioners Vs.1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Chief Secretary to Government, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.2.The Commissioner of Town and Country Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.3.The District Collector/Chairman, Coimbatore Local Planning Authority, Sivananda Colony, Coimbatore – 641 001.4.The Commissioner, Coimbatore Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore – 641 110.5.Kovai Ramanthapuram Veerappa Thevar Colony, Residents Welfare Association Reg. No.49/87, Represented by its President, B.Kulandaisamy, Plot No.10, Veerappa Thevar Colony, Nanjundapuram Post, Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2011 of 2018 Coimbatore – 641 036. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records in ROC No.10248/2010/DP2 dated 22/12/2017 passed by the second respondent, quash the same.For Petitioners:Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, Senior Counsel, for Mr.V.ChandraprabhuFor Respondents1 to 3 :Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Additional Government PleaderFor Respondent 4:Mr.K.MageshFor Respondent 5:Mr.Govarthanan G, for Mr.B.RamamoorthyORDERI heard Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, Senior Counsel representing Mr.V.Chandraprabhu for the petitioners, Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3, Mr.K.Magesh for the respondent 4 and Mr.Govarthanan G representing Mr.B.Ramamoorthy for the respondent 5.2. The petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:“calling for the records in ROC No.10248/2010/DP2 dated 22/12/2017 passed by the second respondent, quash the same.”3. This case has seen two earlier rounds of litigation. At the first instance, it was the fourth petitioner, who moved this court by way of Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2011 of 2018W.P.No.3151 of 2012. He wanted a Mandamus to direct the Director of Town and Country Planning to pass appropriate orders on the basis of the proceedings dated 02.06.2010. The proceedings dated 02.06.2010 was one passed under section 33(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act. 4. There is no dispute that the petitioners had obtained an approved plan from the concerned Town Planning Authority. Thereafter, they made a request on the following lines:(1) to reduce 100 feet road to 60 feet road;(2) to reduce 40 feet road to 23 feet road and (3) for conversion of a playground of an extent of 1.6 acres into plots. 5. The petitioners were initially successful in convincing the Town Planning Authorities. An application for variation was favourably considered and also notified as aforesaid. This court taking note of the order dated 02.06.2010, directed the Commissioner of Town and Country Planning, Chennai to take a final decision in the matter. The Director of Town and Country Planning agreed with the petitioners. He issued a proceeding on 04.07.2017. 6. Now to the 2nd respondent, when the fourth petitioner moved this court in W.P.No.3151 of 2012, he did not make the Residents Welfare Association as a party. It was now, the turn of the Residents Welfare Association to challenge the proceedings of the Commissioner. Playing tit for Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2011 of 2018tat, the fifth respondent herein did not implead the petitioners herein as parties, while challenging the aforesaid proceedings. This challenge made in W.P.No.22254 of 2017 was successful. The proceeding of the Commissioner of Town and Country Planning was quashed and a direction was given in the following terms.“7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 4th and 5th respondents for consideration the objections raised by the petitioner and pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other interested persons, if any. Such exercise shall be done by the 4th and 5th respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such an order is passed as directed in this writ petition, the respondents shall maintain status quo as on today. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”7. As a specific direction has been given to the Commissioner of Town and Country Planning to give an opportunity to the petitioners therein and other interested persons, if any; the Commissioner seems to have issued notice only to the fifth respondent herein. After hearing the fifth respondent and the officials, the Commissioner of Town and Country Planning rejected the request for variation. No opportunity was granted to the petitioners. 8. It is for the first time, that both the petitioner and the respondent welfare association are before the court in a single writ petition. As the Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2011 of 2018Commissioner has not issued notice to the writ petitioner, the order impugned in the writ petition in ROC.No.10248/2010/DP2 dated 22.12.2017 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Commissioner of Town and Country Planning to reconsider the issue all over again. While performing the aforesaid exercise, the second respondent shall hear the writ petitioner, the fifth respondent and any other interested persons, either supporting or opposing the proposal. Needless to add, the second respondent is also directed to hear the fourth respondent or any officials deputed by him prior to taking a decision. 9. Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 states that this exercise will be completed within a period of eight weeks from today. As parties have been litigating for nearly 2 decades and they are still at the drawing board, the second respondent is directed to hear everyone and pass orders within a period of eight weeks and report compliance before this court. 10. Before bringing the curtains down on the matter, I should record the submission of Mr.Magesh, appearing for the Commissioner, Coimbatore Municipal Corporation, that after an interim order of Status Quo is obtained by the writ petitioner, he has proceeded to put up temporary structures and has let the same out. The order of Status Quo obtained by this court implies that both the petitioner, as well as the respondents would have to maintain the property as it stood on the day the interim order was passed.Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2011 of 201811. Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian states that he has no instruction in this regard. In case, temporary superstructures were put up by the petitioners and if the orders of the second respondent go against them, they shall take steps to remove the superstructures, without waiting for the fourth respondent to take further action. 12. Writ Petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13. Post the matter for reporting compliance on 10.11.2025.08.09.2025nlInternet:YesIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking orderTo1.The Chief Secretary to Government, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.2.The Commissioner of Town and Country Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.3.The District Collector/Chairman,Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2011 of 2018 Coimbatore Local Planning Authority, Sivananda Colony, Coimbatore – 641 001.4.The Commissioner, Coimbatore Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore – 641 110.5.B.Kulandaisamy, The President, Kovai Ramanthapuram Veerappa Thevar Colony, Residents Welfare Association Reg. No.49/87, Plot No.10, Veerappa Thevar Colony, Nanjundapuram Post, Coimbatore – 641 036. Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2011 of 2018V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN. J,nlW.P.No.2011 of 201808.09.2025Page 8 of 8