Carborandum Universal Ltd v. State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:- 08.11.2006Coram:-The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.TAMILVANANWrit Petition No.10360 of 2004Carborandum Universal Ltd.,TIAM House,72, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001... PetitionerVs.1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, rep. by its Member-Secretary, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia for issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the recordsrelating to the notice No.ES3/4794/2004 dated 23.03.2004 issued by thesecond respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner: Mr.P.R.RamanFor 1st Respondent : Mr.P.Subramanian Government AdvocateFor 2nd respondent : Mr.J.Ravindran, CMDAORDER (Order of the Court was delivered by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)The petitioner viz.,Carborandum Universal Limited, challenges thedemolition notice dated 23.03.2004 issued by the second respondent inthis writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

#2. According to the petitioner, their factory at Pallikaranai islocated at Tambaram-Velachery Road in T.S.Nos.542, 546, 560 to 563,566 to 568 and 571 in an extent of around 5 acres, pursuant to theorders of Company Court in C.P.Nos.99 of 1998 and 103 of 1998 dated17.07.1998. According to the petitioner, consequent to theamalgamation, they took over the title and ownership and all theassets and liabilities of the Cutfast Abrasive Tools Ltd., includingthe lands and industrial building at Pallikaranai Village. The firstrespondent brought forth a scheme for regularisation of unauthorisedconstructions and framed the Application, Assessment and Collection ofRegularisation fee (CMA) Rules, 1999. The petitioner applied forregularisation of the factory premises at Pallikkaranai village underthe said scheme. The petitioner also made an application to thesecond respondent on 31.10.2000 and remitted an amount of Rs.15,000/-as regularisation fee advance and Rs.7,000/- towards scrutiny fees.By an order dated 31.10.2001, the second respondent determined thebalance regularisation fee payable by the petitioner as Rs.6,75,549/-.The second respondent also specified that any person aggrieved by theorder may prefer an appeal to the Government under Section 113-A(6)of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. Pursuant to the same, thepetitioner preferred an appeal dated 20.12.2001 to the firstrespondent, giving various grounds to reduce the regularisation feedown to Rs.1,45,244/-. Pending appeal, the first respondent cameforward with a revised structure in terms of G.O.Ms.No.121 Housingand Urban Development Department, dated 24.04.2002. In the light ofthe fresh G.O., reducing the rates, the first respondent by itsproceedings dated 03.05.2002 informed the petitioner that thepetitioner would be eligible to reapply on or before 30.06.2002.On payment of revised fees as directed, the petitioner made a freshapplication dated 30.06.2002 with all annexures to the secondrespondent. A further sum of Rs.50,000/- as advance regularisationand scrutiny fee of Rs.10,500/- was remitted by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, they are yet to receive any order fromthe second respondent. The petitioner also clarified to the secondrespondent stating that it had resubmitted for regularisation withfurther payment of fees under the revised scheme. Whileso thepetitioner received the impugned notice dated 23.03.2004 issued bythe second respondent, by he was threatened with demolition actionunder the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 since the petitioner'sregularisation application has been returned, unapproved in letterdated 29.09.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed thepresent writ petition.3. None of the respondents has filed counter affidavit.4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as wellas the respondents.5. The particulars furnished in the affidavit show that thebuilding/buildings in question are constructed prior to 1999. It is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ also brought to our notice a Division Bench decision of this Courtreported in 2006 (4) CTC 483 (CONSUMER ACTION GROUP VS. THE STATE OFTAMIL NADU), wherein it has approved all action taken prior to22.02.1999 vide para 32(i). It is clear that the Division Bench hasnot approved the subsequent regularisation scheme and various orderspassed thereafter. In such circumstances, we have to see whether thepetitioner is entitled to any relief. 6. Mr.P.R.Raman, learned counsel appearing for the petitionersubmitted that in view of the orders of the Division Bench referred toabove and of the fact that the building/buildings came into existencewell prior to 1999, a direction may be issued to the Government fordisposal of the petitioner's appeal dated 20.12.2001 on merits. It isnot in dispute that after framing of the second scheme, the saidappeal was disposed of by the first respondent with a request to thepetitioner to apply afresh based on the second scheme. The said orderdated 03.05.2002 of the Government is available at page 27 of thetyped set of papers. A perusal of the said order shows that theGovernment had not gone into the claim of the petitioner-appellant inthat appeal on merits and the appeal was disposed of only on the basisof the revised scheme. In such circumstances, the learned counselfor the petitioner submitted that direction may be issued to theGovernment for restoration of the appeal dated 20.12.2001 and disposalof the same on merits.7. We have verified the ultimate conclusion and the directionsissued by the Division Bench in the above referred decision. We havealso verified the appeal of the petitioner dated 20.12.2001 and theorder of the Government dated 03.05.2002. As rightly pointed out andin view of the fact that the first respondent had not applied theirmind and verified the facts and figures with reference to the amountpayable by the petitioner, we are of the view that ends of justicewould be met by issuing appropriate direction. 8. In the light of what is stated above, while quashing theimpugned notice, we direct the first respondent-Secretary, Housing andUrban Development Department, Chennai-9, to restore the appeal ofthe petitioner dated 20.12.2001 and dispose of the same afresh inaccordance with law after affording an opportunity to the petitionerwithin a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order.9. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. raaSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.The Member-Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.ONE CC TO M/S P.R. RAMAN, ADVOCATE SR NO 53364ONE CC TO MR J. RAVINDRAN, ADVOCATE SR NO 54105ONE CC TO G.P., SR NO 53495 W.P.No.10360 of 200408.11.2006AVM(CO)BP/1.12