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.2667 of 2005 and WPMP.No.2959 of 2005 1. P.S.Surana 2. Leelavathi Surana 3. Vinod Surana 4. Rashmi Surana Petitioners 1 to 4 are rep. By their Power of Attorney Agent Mr.prakashmal Surana ..Petitioners ..vs.. 1. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dept., Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, represented by its Member Secretary, 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 Petitioners : Mrs.Meera Gupta 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 petitioners have approached this Court to issue a Writ of declaration, declaring that the provisions of Rule 19(b)(III-B) of Development Control Rules and Rule 13 of the Special Rules for Multi-storied Building as ultra vires, illegal, unconstitutional and unenforceable in so far as it relates to levy and collection of security deposit for the proposed development and consequently direct the respondents to issue planning permission for proposed development of Office Building, basement floor + ground floor + Mesanine floor + III floor at Old Nos.37 and 38, New Nos.61 and 63 at Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-4, comprised in R.S.No.1707/4, 1707/6, Block No.36 of Mylapore Village, Chennai, without insisting on security deposit of Rs.85,000/- of proposed development in the Communication dated 11.01.2005 in Lr.No.B2/22087 of the 2nd respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 31.01.2005 in WPMP.No.2959 of 2005, the petitioners have furnished bank guarantee towards the demand one year ago. It is also brought to our notice that as per the said direction, the petitioners have to keep the bank guarantee alive to the satisfaction of the respondents.
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. We make it clear that the petitioners have to keep the bank guarantee alive for the entire period, namely, six years. 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 petitioners are 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
Department,
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.