High Court Madras High Court

Saveetha Medical And Educational … vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 November, 2006

Madras High Court
Saveetha Medical And Educational … vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 November, 2006
       

  

  

 
 
 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

Dated:  30.11.2006

Coram:

The Honourable Mr.Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice S.TAMILVANAN

Writ Petition No.9645 of 2006
and 
WPMP. No.10743 of 2006
	


+ + + + +

Saveetha Medical and Educational Trust,
rep.by the President
Dr.N.M.Veeraiyan,
No.162, Poonamalee High Road,
Velappanchavadi,
Chennai 600 077. 				..Petitioner


	..vs..


1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
   rep.by its Secretary to Government,
   Housing and Urban Development Dept.,
   Fort St.George,
   Chennai 600 009.

2. The Member Secretary,
   Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
   No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
   Egmore, 
   Chennai 600 008.				..Respondents

+ + + + +


	Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, for the reasons stated therein.


- - - - -
For Petitioner   : Mr.S.K.Nachimuthu

For Respondents  : Mr.A.Edwin Prabhakaran, Govt.Advocate for R1
		   Mr.J.Ravindran for R2
- - - - -


ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)

The petitioner has approached this Court to issue a Writ of declaration, declaring that the provisions contained in B-111 of Rule 19 of Development Control Rules to Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 are ultra vires, unconstitutional, arbitrary and colourable exercise of power and consequently forbearing the 2nd respondent from insisting on the payment of Security Deposit and Sewerage Treatment Plant charges for putting up any construction by the petitioner in Survey No.65/4, 5, 8 and 66/1-A, 1-B, 2, 3-A, 4, 7 and 40/2 and 3 of Senneerkuppam Village, Chennai.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 06.04.2006 in WPMP.No.10743 of 2006, the petitioner Trust has furnished bank guarantee for the entire amount.

4. In view of the same, we are of the view that there is no need to go into the relief claimed in the writ petition. It is further made clear that if there is any violation / deviation, the 2nd respondent is free to take appropriate action including forfeiting the bank guarantee. It is needless to mention that before any action being taken, the petitioner is to be heard and opportunity should be afforded to them.

With the above observation, the writ petition is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP.is closed.

gl

To

1. The Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Dept.,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.

2. The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Chennai 600 008.

[PRV/8851]