CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR v. The State of Tamilnadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 15-12-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAHW.P.No.28653 of 2008Bharathi Cultural and WelfareAssociationReg.No.203/74 by itsJoint SecretaryPlot No.1, Street No.50,TNHB Colony, Korattur,Chennai 600 080... Petitionervs1.The State of Tamilnadu rep. by its Secretary Municipality and Water Supply Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.2.The Managing Director Tamilnadu Housing Board No.493 Anna Salai Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.3.The Managing Director Chennai Metropolitan DevelopmentAuthority Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore, Chennai 600 008.4.The Commissioner Ambattur Municipality Ambattur, Chennai.. RespondentsWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents toconstruct a permanent bus terminus at TNHB Colony, Korattur, in PlotsNo.1113 and 1113A as per the scheme in drawing No.TNHB/CP No.78Tamilnadu Housing Board Colony, based on an initial approval made bythe CMDA the third respondent herein in layout PPP No.64/76-RSNo.1040, Korattur Village as earmarked forthwith.For Petitioner : Mr.L.ChandrakumarFor Respondents: Mr.A.Arumugam Special Government Pleaderfor R1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.I.Paranthaman for R3 Mr.S.Benazir for R4ORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)This public interest litigation is brought forth by oneSeshagiri Rao, who is the Joint Secretary of the petitioner'sassociation, seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents toconstruct a permanent bus terminus at TNHB Colony, Korattur, in PlotNos.1113 and 1113A as per the scheme in drawing No.TNHB/CP No.78Tamilnadu Housing Board Colony, based on an initial approval made bythe CMDA the third respondent herein in layout PPP No.64/76-RSNo.1040, Korattur Village, as earmarked forthwith alleging that he isa resident of the TNHB Colony, Korattur; that for the development ofthe said colony, the respondents have chosen to earmark certain areasfor public purpose; that one such area has been earmarked measuring4.625 grounds to accommodate a primary school now being used as busstand; that the petitioner came to know that the respondents havechosen to reclassify the proposed bus terminus into a primary schoolso as to develop and sell the prime locality for illegal enrichment;that a communication was addressed to the respondents asking aboutthe information; but, the information was not properly given, andthey were very vague. 2.It is also further averred that by the proceedings, it hasbeen replied that plot No.1113 of Korattur Neighbourhood Scheme wassaid to have been allotted to Ambattur Municipality, and a portionhas been reserved for the commercial purposes; but, the specificquery who was the actual owner of the land has not been answered;that the proposal for the conversion for commercial purpose has beensent virtually throwing into bin the avowed object of the TNHB; andthat the Municipality has also passed an unanimous resolution whereinit is specifically agreed and resolved for the allocation of thefunds for the development of the bus depot with all necessaryamenities. 3.It is also the further case of the petitioner that they areaggrieved against the arbitrary act of the respondents makingdeviation from the resolution already passed by the municipality, andin such circumstances, it becomes necessary to issue directions tothe respondents by way of a writ of mandamus to construct a permanentbus terminus in TNHB Colony, Korattur, in plot Nos.1113 and 1113A asper the scheme in drawing No.TNHB/CP No.78 Tamilnadu Housing BoardColony. 4.A counter affidavit was filed by the fourth respondentmunicipality. It is specifically averred by the fourth respondentthat the petition itself is misconceived; that the petitioner seeks adirection to construct a bus terminus at TNHB Colony, Korattur, inPlot Nos.1113 and 1113A as per the scheme referred to in thepetition; and that the allegation that the layout PPP No.64/76-RSNo.1040, Korattur Village, has been earmarked for bus stand was falseand frivolous. It is further stated by the fourth respondent that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the above plots were originally earmarked for primary school; that asfar as the bus stand was concerned, plot No.1155 was earmarked andthus any allegations made contrary cannot but be false. 5.Further it is contended by the fourth respondent that arevised plan has been proposed and placed by the CMDA before thefourth respondent municipality for approval; but, it has not yet beenapproved; that apart from that, a mistake has crept in while handingover of the site to Ambattur Municipality which was earmarked for busstand, as one for primary school; that the same is being takenadvantage by the petitioner's side; that the plan is also pendingapproval; that plot No.1155 has been earmarked for bus stand; thatunder the circumstances, the petitioner's contention that AmbatturMunicipality has manipulated against the public interest has got tobe rejected, and hence, the relief cannot be granted and the petitionwas to be dismissed.6.The Court paid its consideration on the submissions made.7.The grievance ventilated by the petitioner as could be seenfrom the submissions made and the averments made in the affidavit isthat a permanent bus stand has got to be constructed at TNHB Colony,Korattur, for which purpose a direction has got to be given to therespondents. It is specifically stated that the bus stand has got tobe constructed in the plots namely 1113 and 1113A as if they wereearmarked as per the scheme in drawing No.TNHB/CP No.78 TamilnaduHousing Board Colony. It could be seen from the counter filed by thefourth respondent that plot Nos.1113 and 1113A were earmarked for theprimary school originally. It could also be seen that plot No.1155has been earmarked for the purpose of bus stand, and while handingover the lands, a mistake has crept in; but, all the records areavailable to vouch for the fact that what has been earmarked for thebus stand was only plot No.1155 and not plot Nos.1113 and 1113A asput forth by the petitioner's side. In such circumstances, once aparticular land has been earmarked for the purpose of a primaryschool namely plot Nos.1113 and 1113A, now no direction as asked forby the petitioner could be issued to the respondents to construct apermanent bus stand in that land contrary to the earmarking andapproval already made. 8.It is also brought to the notice of the Court by the learnedCounsel for the fourth respondent municipality that the CMDA hasplaced its plan for approval before that municipality, and the sameis also pending approval. The Housing Board has placed before theCMDA a revised plan for approval, and no steps have yet been taken onthat. In such circumstances, the grievance that plot Nos.1113 and1113A were earmarked for the purpose of a bus stand, and a directionhas got to be given had no basis at all. Once it is brought to thenotice of the Court that a particular land in plot No.1155 has beenearmarked for the purpose of a bus stand, no question of directingthe respondents to construct a bus stand in plot Nos.1113 and 1113Awhich were originally earmarked for the purpose of a primary school, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ would arise. Hence the request of the petitioner cannot be accededto, and this petition requires an order of dismissal. Accordingly,this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar//true copy//Sub Asst.Registrar nsvTo:1.The Secretary Municipality and Water Supply Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.2.The Managing Director Tamilnadu Housing Board No.493 Anna Salai Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.3.The Managing Director Chennai Metropolitan DevelopmentAuthority Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore, Chennai 600 008.4.The Commissioner Ambattur Municipality Ambattur, Chennai1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.688361 cc to Mr.L.Chandrakumar, Advocate, Sr.No.686761 cc to Mr.J.Raja Kalifulla, Advocate, Sr.No.68631 W.P.No.28653 of 2008KJI {CO}TP/23.12.2009.