{"id":260886,"date":"2003-09-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-09-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-a-sreedevi-vs-the-commissioner-on-23-september-2003"},"modified":"2015-01-03T23:29:53","modified_gmt":"2015-01-03T17:59:53","slug":"mrs-a-sreedevi-vs-the-commissioner-on-23-september-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-a-sreedevi-vs-the-commissioner-on-23-september-2003","title":{"rendered":"Mrs. A. Sreedevi vs The Commissioner on 23 September, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Mrs. A. Sreedevi vs The Commissioner on 23 September, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 23\/09\/2003\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM\n\nWrit Petition No. 15952 of 2003\nand W.P.Nos. 17159 and 17186 of 2003\n\nand W.P.M.P.Nos.20023, 21497, 21451, 21496, 21450 of 2003 and W.V.M.\nP.No. 1129 of 2003\n\n\nW.P.No. 15952\/2003.\n\nMrs. A. Sreedevi,\nrepresented by her Power of Attorney\nAgent, Dileep Bhandari.                  .. Petitioner.\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Commissioner,\n   Corporation of Chennai,\n   Chennai-600 003.\n\n2. Member Secretary,\n   Chennai Metropolitan Development\n   Authority, Gandhi Irwin Road,\n   Chennai-8.\n\n3. R. Ramachandran,\n\n4. M\/s. Shanthi Builders,\n   represented by its partner\n   Gowtham Chand.\n\n   (Respondents 3 and 4 were impleaded<\/pre>\n
    as per order of Court dated 1-7-2003).       .. Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.No. 17159\/2003<\/p>\n
Dileep Bhandari
\n                                      .. Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                          Vs.\n<\/p>\n
1. The Commissioner,
\n   Corporation of Chennai,
\n   Chennai-600 003.\n<\/p>\n
2. Member Secretary,
\n   Chennai Metropolitan Development
\n   Authority, Gandhi Irwin Road,
\n   Chennai-8.\n<\/p>\n
                                 .. Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.No. 17186\/2003<\/p>\n
M\/s. Shanthi Builders,
\nrepresented by its Partner
\nGowtham Chand.\n<\/p>\n
                                 .. Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                          Vs.\n<\/p>\n
1. The Commissioner,
\n   Corporation of Chennai,
\n   Chennai-600 003.\n<\/p>\n
2. Member Secretary,
\n   Chennai Metropolitan Development
\n   Authority, Gandhi Irwin Road,
\n   Chennai-8.\n<\/p>\n
3. Mrs. A. Sreedevi,
\n   represented by her Power of Attorney
\n   Agent, Dileep Bhandari.\n<\/p>\n
                                     .. Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
Petitions filed under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India,  for  issuance
\nof Writs of Certiorari, and Certiorarified Mandamus, as stated therein.\n<\/p>\n
!For Petitioners in W.P.Nos.15952
\nand 17159\/2003 and for 3rd respondent in
\nW.P.17186\/2003.                 :  Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, Senior Counsel
\n                                   for M\/s. P.Subba Reddy<\/p>\n
Mr.  A.L.  Somayaji, Senior counsel for Mr.  K.\n<\/p>\n
Ramanath Reddy:- For petitioner in W.P.17186\/2003
\nand for 4th Respondent in W.P.15952\/2003.\n<\/p>\n
For 1st Respondent in all W.Ps.         :  Mr.  N.R.  Chandran, Advocate General
\n                                    for Mr.  C. Ravichandran<\/p>\n
Mr.  K.A.  Ravindran for C.M.D.A.  in all W.Ps.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  Srinath Sridevan for R-3 in W.P.15952\/2003.\n<\/p>\n
:COMMON ORDER<\/p>\n
By consent of all the parties and in view of urgency in deciding the issue one
\nway or other writ petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal.  Since
\nall the  three  writ  petitions  relate  to  property bearing Nos.  11 and 12,
\nBishop Wallers Avenue (South), Mylapore, Chennai-4, they are being disposed of
\nby the following common order.   Aggrieved  by  the  order  No.    1704  dated
\n30-5-2003 issued by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai under Section 258
\nof  the  Madras  City  Municipal Corporation Act IV of 1919, c alling upon the
\npetitioner to fence off, take down, except stilt  plus  4  floors,  secure  or
\nrepair  such  building so as to prevent any danger therefrom, the owner of the
\nproperty, namely, A.  Sridevi through her Power of Atttorney  Dileep  Bhandari
\nhas filed Writ Petition No.  15952\/2003 to quash the same on various grounds.\n<\/p>\n
2.   The  Power  of  Attorney  Dileep  Bhandari,  aggrieved  by  the order No.
\nESI\/10791\/2002 dated  30-5-2003,  passed  by  the  Member  Secretary,  Chennai
\nMetropolitan   Development   Authority,   Chennai-8,  2nd  respondent  herein,
\nforfeiting security deposit of Rs.70,000\/- for the building and Rs.10,000\/-for
\nthe Display Board, has filed Writ Petition No.  17159\/2003 to quash the same.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Questioning  the  order  dated  30-5-2003  passed  by  the  Commissioner,
\nCorporation  of  Chennai  for  the property bearing door Nos.11 and 12, Bishop
\nWallers Avenue (South) Mylapore, Chennai-4 issued under  Section  378  of  the
\nMadras  City  Municipal  Corporation  Act  intimating that the officers of the
\nCorporation will enter the premises referred  to  above  for  the  purpose  of<\/p>\n
demolishing  the building in dangerous condition after expiry of 12 hours from
\nthe service of the said notice, M\/s Shanthi Builders-Developers has filed Writ
\nPetition No.  171 86\/2003 to quash the same on various grounds.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The case of the owner of the property is briefly stated hereunder:
\nAccording to Power of Attorney, he is the owner of the property  bearing  door
\nNos.11 and 12, Bishop Wallers Avenue(South), Mylapore, Chennai-4 and entrusted
\nthe property  for  joint  development  construction.    Construction  has been
\ncompleted at the site over and above the sanctioned plan.  The builder has put
\nup additional floors and for putting up the same, applications had  been  made
\nto  Chennai  Metropolitan  Development  Authority and Rs.13,18,920-50 has been
\npaid and completion certificate has been issued by  the  C.M.D.A.,  by  letter
\ndated 11-2-2003.  At the instance of the Metro Water and Sewerage Board, while
\ndigging  up work was going on in the front road portion, one of the columns of
\nthe building given crack and the neighbouring owners given  complaint  to  the
\nCommissioner  of  Police,  Member  Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development
\nAuthority and Commissioner,  Chennai  Corporation.`  All  the  above  Agencies
\ninspected  the  building  and  the Commissioner of Police issued order to take
\nappropriate steps to strengthen the columns.  The Member  Secretary,  C.M.D.A.
\nissued  notice  dated 28-5-2003 and sought for explanation and given time upto
\n2-6-2003.  He has  taken  Expert  opinion  and  taking  appropriate  steps  to
\nstrengthen the  columns.   At this juncture, the first respondent on 30-5-2003
\naround 11.30 P.M.  affixed notice and stated that they want  to  demolish  the
\nbuildign within 12 hours.  No opportunity was given by the first respondent to
\nthe petitioner  before passing the demolition notice.  Hence the notice issued
\nby the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai is improper and against principles
\nof natural justice.  The petitioner had taken  all  steps  to  strengthen  the
\ncolumns.   He  also  sought opinion from Experts and construction Engineers to
\nstrengthen the columns.  He has also applied regularisation  scheme  with  the
\nC.M.D.A.  and  paid  money  also.    The  notice dated 30-5-2003 issued by the
\nCommissioner, Corporation of Chennai is null and void.    Hence  the  same  is
\nliable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
5.  The  power of attorney in W.P.No.  17159\/2003 in addition to the statement
\nmade in W.P.No.  15952\/2003 has stated that petitioner had taken and now being
\nfollowed to provide adequate steps to strengthen the columns of  the  building
\nby utilising the services of a multi-national company.  Reinforcing of all the
\ncolumns  instead of restricting themselves to affected column has already been
\ncommenced by Epoxy Injection grouting and once this  work  is  completed  more
\nrebars  above  the  foundation  to  increase  the  size of the columns will be
\nplaced.  All these works have been carried out in the presence  of  Structural
\nEngineer.   Corporation  Officials including the Chief Engineer are inspecting
\nperiodically to see that the  work  has  been  carried  out  at  the  building
\nproperly or  not.    While  so, particularly when this Court has seized of the
\nentire matter, the action of the Member Secretary, C.M.D.A.    by  issuing  an
\nanti-date  order  is  arbitrary,  illegal  and it is against the principles of
\nnatural justice.\n<\/p>\n
6.  It is the case of the Shanthi Builders-Developer,  petitioner  in  W.P.No.
\n17186\/2003  that  on  receipt  of  notice  from the Commissioner, Corporation,
\nChennai, they requested suggestion from both the Civic authorities in order to
\ntake appropriate steps.  Already they have taken from highly technical persons
\nthe measures to improve the structures and they are  doing  the  same  to  the
\nbuilding.\n<\/p>\n
7.   The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai has filed a counter affidavit in
\nW.P.No.  15952\/2003 wherein it is stated that he received  a  complaint  dated
\n27-5-2003  from  Paxina  Owners  Association  at No.10, Bishop Wallers Avenue,
\nMylapore, Chennai complaining  that  the  concrete  pillars  in  the  adjacent
\nmulti-storeyed  building  (  petitioner’s  building)  started cracking and the
\nsteel rods were found to be exposed and  bent  which  posed  threat  to  cause
\ndamage  to  life  and  property of their building and also the general public.
\nImmediately, the said complaint was forwarded to the  concerned  Zonal  Office
\nfor  taking  necessary action besides deputing officials of the Corporation of
\nChennai to inspect the petitioner’s building  immediately.    Accordingly  the
\nofficials  of  Corporation  of  Chennai  including  the  City Engineer made an
\ninspection on 27-5-2003 in the presence of the representatives of the Builders
\nand submitted an inspection report to the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai
\non 27-5-2003 stating that the construction was  completed  for  stilt  plus  8
\nfloors  as against the sanction of stilt plus four floors, and a column in the
\nwest corner had developed cracks due to the reinforcement in  the  column  has
\nbeen  buckled  and  subsequent  cracks  were  also seen in the adjacent walls.
\nHence it is considered as dangerous building for occupation.  Immediately,  on
\n27-5-2003  itself the Corporation of Chennai issued a notice under Section 258
\nof the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, in and by which the builder  was
\nasked, within 7 days of service of the notice, to fence off, take down, secure
\nand repair  such building so as to prevent any danger therefrom.  While so, on
\n30-5-2003, he received a copy of the report of Superintending Engineer, Public
\nWorks Department.  In that report, it  was  mentioned  that  the  building  in
\nquestion was  in  dangerous  conditions  posing  threat to the public.  It was
\nfurther mentioned that  the  design  structure  was  unsafe  and  that  actual
\nreinforcement  in  the  column  is  only  6.78  cm2  (6  Nos.)  as against the
\nrequirement of 23.85 cm2.  The steel used is just about 1\/4th of t  he  actual
\nrequirement.  The structure was not stable for the existing condition of stilt
\nplus 8 floors and that the reinforcement provided was just sufficient only for
\nstilt plus  4  floors.    Based  on the report of the Superintending Engineer,
\nPublic Works Department, and the City Engineer of Corporation of  Chennai  and
\nafter  due  deliberation,  it  was  felt  that  the  building was in dangerous
\nconditions posing threat to the life and it  was  decided  to  pull  down  the
\nunauthorised and unsafe structure immediately.  In exercise of power conferred
\nunder Section  258(2)  of  M.C.M.C.  Act, notice dated 30-5-2003 was issued by
\ngiving  12  hours  time  to  pull  down   the   unauthorised   structure   and
\nsimultaneously  notice  under Section 378 of Madras City Municipal Corporation
\nAct was also issued.   Since  the  petitioner  refused  to  receive  the  said
\nnotices,  the  same  were affixed on the petitioner’s premises with witnesses.
\nSimultaneously, a press publication in respect of Notice under Section 258  of
\nthe  said Act was published on 31-5-2003 in “Indian Express” and “Dina Boomi”.
\nSince the petitioner failed to take steps for demolition of  the  unauthorised
\ndangerous  structure till 12 noon on 31-05-2003, the Corporation officials had
\nentered upon the premises and commenced the demolition work.  At  this  state,
\nthe petitioners  have approached this Court.  Though this Court has not stayed
\nthe demolition  work,  however,  permitted  the  petitioner  to  convince  the
\ninspecting  officials of the Corporation as to the safety measures that can be
\nprovided to the present structure before ever  the  threatened  demolition  is
\nresorted  to  and  the  order  made  it  clear  that  it is for the inspecting
\nauthority to either accept or reject any such proposal that may  be  submitted
\nby the  petitioner.   Since the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D., on inspection
\nhas certified that the column reinforcement are inadequate to take  additional
\nload,  the  building may collapse at any time, it was considered as imminently
\ndangerous.  Therefore, the Commissioner, Corporation  of  Chennai  has  issued
\nnotice  under  section 258 followed by notice under Section 378 of Madras City
\nMunicipal Corporation Act.  Though the builder has assured to  strengthen  the
\ncolumn,  the  builders  have not suggested as to how they would strengthen the
\nbeam running between the column.  The load will be transferred  from  beam  to
\ncolumn.   Therefore,  the  building  is  not  safe  to  exist  in  the present
\ncondition.  Every minute the building stands pose a danger to  public  safety.
\nThe  Commissioner,  Corporation  of Chennai is justified in issuing notice and
\ntaking action.\n<\/p>\n
8.  Senior Planner, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA in short)
\nhas filed a counter affidavit in W.P.No.  15952 \/2003  wherein  it  is  stated
\nthat  on receipt of the complaint from one Proxima Owners Associaton at No.10,
\nBishop Wallers Avenue, Mylapore, Chennai-4 stating that next to their building
\nhave started caving in and the steel rods found to be exposed and  bent  which
\nmay  likely to cause damage to life and property of their building and also to
\nthe general public, a notice was issued by  the  Chennai  Corporation  to  the
\ndeveloper  Thiru  Dhileep Bhandari under Section 258 of the M.C.M.C.Act, 1919,
\nby which an opportunity was given to the developer to secure  or  repair  such
\nbuilding so  as to prevent any danger therefrom.  The petitioner through their
\nPower of Attorney has submitted  an  application  for  regularisation  of  the
\nbuilding at  No.11  and  12,  Bishop  Wallers  Avenue (South), C.I.T.  Colony,
\nMylapore, Chennai-4 and paid the  regularisation  charges  also.    Therefore,
\nN.O.C.  for power  supply  and  C.M.W.  S.S.B.  connection of sewere and water
\nwas issued by their office  in  letter  No.    11-02-2003.    Subsequently  on
\n27-5-2003  the  construction  was  inspected  and noticed that some cracks are
\ndeveloped in one of the columns and due to this,  the  front  main  wall  also
\ndeveloped with  cracks.    Therefore,  a  show  cause  notice  was  issued for
\ncancellation of the NOC.  The issue of NOC for the building does not amount to
\ngrant of planning permission  under  the  Act.    As  on  date,  the  building
\nconstructed  more  and  above the planning permission issued by the respondent
\nstands unauthorised.\n<\/p>\n
9.  In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr.  R.  Krishnamoorthi,
\nlearned senior counsel for the owner of the property and  Power  of  Attorney;
\nMr.  A.L.     Somayaji,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  Developer-Shanthi
\nBuilders; Mr.  N.R.  Chandran, learned Advocate General,  for  Corporation  of
\nChennai; Mr.   K.A.    Raveendran,  learned  counsel  for  C.M.D.A.;  and  Mr.
\nSreenath   Sridevan,   learned   counsel   for   the   third   respondent   in
\nW.P.No.15952\/2003,  who  is  residing  in  the  adjacent Flat at No.10, Bishop
\nWallers Avenue, Mylapore.\n<\/p>\n
10.  In these writ petitions we are concerned with the building constructed at
\nNos.11 and 12, Bishop Wallers Avenue (South), Mylapore, Chennai-4  and  notice
\nof  rectification\/demolition of part of the building dated 30-5-2003 issued by
\nthe Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and order dated 30-5-2003  passed  by
\nMember Secretary, C.   M.D.A.    forfeiting security deposit etc.  There is no
\ndispute that planning permission was issued in  respect  of  the  building  in
\nquestion only for construction of stilt plus 4 floors (G plus 4 floors).  Even
\naccording  to the owner of the building and the Builder, construction has been
\ncompleted at the site over and above the sanctioned plan.  This is clear  from
\npara 2  of the affidavit of Dileep Bhandari, Power of Attorney of S.  Sridevi,
\nowner of the building in  question.    No  doubt,  it  is  the  claim  of  the
\npetitioners  that  after putting up additional floors, an application has been
\nmade to  C.M.D.A.    and  necessary  amount  of   Rs.13,18,920-50   paid   and
\nconsequently C.M.D.A.      issued   completion  certificate  by  letter  dated
\n11-2-2003.  It is also the case of the petitioners that when Metro  Water  and
\nSewerage Board dug up the earth in order to lay water pipe, one of the columns
\nof  the  building  was  given  crack  and  the  neighbouring owner has given a
\ncomplaint to the Commissioner of Police, C.M.D.A.   and  Chennai  Corporation.
\nThe  neighbour  of  the building, namely, Proxima Owners Association at No.10,
\nBishop Wallers Avenue, Mylapore made a complaint dated  27-5-2003  complaining
\nthat concrete pillars in the adjacent multi-storeyed building started cracking
\nand  the  steel  rods  were found to be exposed and bent which posed threat to
\ncause damage to the life and property of the building  and  also  the  general
\npublic.   It  is  seen  from  the  information  furnished by the Commissioner,
\nChennai Corporation that the complaint was forwarded to  the  concerned  Zonal
\nOffice  for  taking  necessary  action  besides  deputing the officials of the
\nCorporation to inspect the petitioner’s building immediately.  It  is  further
\nseen  that  the  officials  of  the  Corporation of Chennai including the City
\nEngineer made an inspection 27-5-2003 in the presence of  the  representatives
\nof  the  Builders  and  submitted  a  report  to  the  Commissioner of Chennai
\nCorporation on the same day stating that the construction  was  completed  for
\nstilt  plus  eight  floors  as against the sanctioned plan for construction of
\nstilt plus four floors-vide C.E.B.A.No.295\/01 dated 11-7-2001 and a column  in
\nthe  west  corner  had developed cracks due to the reinforcement in the column
\nhas been buckled and subsequent cracks were also seen in the  adjacent  walls.
\nIt was considered that it is not safe for occupation.  Considering the urgency
\nand safety of the nearby residents as well as the general public, on 27-5-2003
\nitself the Commissioner, Chennai Corporation issued a notice under Section 258
\nof  the  Madras City Municipal Corporation Act (in short “MCMC Act”) in and by
\nwhich the petitioner-Builder was asked within 7 days of service of notice,  to
\nfence  off,  take  down,  secure and repair such building so as to prevent any
\ndanger from them.  It is further seen that the Commissioner has also  received
\na report of Superintending Engineer, P.W.D.  on 30 -5-2003.  In that report it
\nwas mentioned that the building in question was in dangerous conditions posing
\nthreat to  the public.  It was further mentioned in the report that the design
\nstructure was unsafe, the structure was not stable for the existing  condition
\nof stilt plus 8 floors and that the reinforcement provided was just sufficient
\nonly for  stilt  plus  4 floors.  It is further seen that on the report of the
\nSuperintending Engineer, Public Works Department, and  the  City  Engineer  of
\nCorporation  of  Chennai  and  after noting that the building was in dangerous
\nconditions posing threat to the life and property, the Commissioner of Chennai
\nCorporation decided  to  pull  down  the  unauthorised  and  unsafe  structure
\nimmediately.   Hence  in  exercise of power conferred on him under Section 258
\n(2) of M.C.M.C.Act, notice dated 3 0-5-2003 was issued by giving 12 hours time
\nto pull down  the  unauthorised  structute  and  simultaneously  notice  under
\nSection 378 of M.C.M.  C.Act was also issued.  At this stage, the owner, Power
\nof Attorney and Builder have filed the above writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
11.   When  the  interim  applications  were taken up for hearing, this Court,
\nafter hearing the arguments  of  counsel  for  all  the  parties  and  without
\nprejudice  to  their  rights on 1-7-2003 constituted a committee consisting of\n<\/p>\n
(i) Prof.Dr.  P.K.  Aravindan, Professor  of  Structural  Engineering,  Indian
\nInstitute of  Technology,  Chennai-36;  (  ii)  Mr.    Mohanramanathan, No.11,
\nCenotaph Road, Alwarpet,  Chennai;  and  (iii)  Mr.      S.      Ramachandran,
\nSuperintending Engineer,  Public Works Department, Chennai-5.  It is seen from
\nthe said order, the  names  were  suggested  by  respective  counsel  for  the
\nparties.   The  Court  has directed the committee to conduct necessary test in
\nrespect of the structural soundness of the building and also  the  possibility
\nof strengthening  it.    The  Court  also  directed the committee to offer its
\nopinion relating to the steps taken by the  petitioner  and  submit  a  report
\nwithin one  week.    It  is  further  seen  that  the  committee after initial
\ndeliberations, prayed for another week’s time to submit a report.    The  time
\nwas extended  as  requested.    The  committee  has  submitted its report with
\nreference to structual position of the building in question and also suggested
\nremedial measures.\n<\/p>\n
12.  First I shall refer the report of Prof.Dr.  P.K.  Aravindan.  He  is  the
\nProfessor of Structural Engineering in I.I.T., Chennai-36.  He is a nominee of
\nthe owner  and  the  Builder  of the building.  The following are the relevant
\nmaterials\/excerpts.\n<\/p>\n
The work  of  assessing  the  quality  of  concrete  and  steel  used  in  the
\nconstruction  was  entrusted  to  the Structural Engineering Laboratory of IIT
\nMadras, Chennai-36.  From the I.I.T’s report it is seen that  the  quality  of
\nconcrete used in the construction was good and the damage to the column is not
\ndue  to  any  deficiency in the quality of materials used in the construction.
\nThe committee got the services of  Prof.    S.R.Gandhi,  Professor  and  Head,
\nGeo-Technical  Division,  IIT  Madras,  Chennai-36  to study the report of two
\nGeo-Technical investigation carried out at the site of the building.  From the
\nanalysis, the following stress resultants acting on the column X16-Y1 which is
\nfailed, are obtained.\n<\/p>\n
Axial load = 940.00 kN<\/p>\n
The moment about the major axis x,<\/p>\n
Mx = 0.07 kN-m<\/p>\n
The moment about the minor axis y,<\/p>\n
My = 2.88 kN-m<\/p>\n
Assuming the characteristic strength of the concrete as 20 Mpa,  the  area  of
\nsteel required  to  resist  the  above  forces is 1650 mm2.  The area of steel
\nprovided in the column is 6Y12 giving an area 678 mm2 which is only 41% of the
\nrequired area of steel.  This is the reason for the failure of that particular
\ncolumn.  There might be other columns  also  in  somewhat  similar  condition.
\nSince  the  aim of this part of the investigation is only to assess the reason
\nfor the  failure  of  the  particular  column  X16-Y1,  investigation  on  the
\ncondition of  other columns is not carried out.  From the table it can be seen
\nthat some of the columns  have  to  be  strengthened  by  jacketing  which  is
\nindicated in  the  Table  1.  A typical scheme of jacketing is shown in Fig 3.
\nIt is of the opinion of the undersigned that the  building  as  exists  now  (
\nground  plus  seven  upper  floors)  can  be strengthened to give satisfactory
\nperformance all through out the life of the structure.  It is found  that  all
\nthe beams and slabs are safe to carry the load coming on them.  Even the beams
\nabove  the  ground  floor  is  checked  for 2= times the bending moment due to
\nearthquake being part of soft storey as per IS:1893  2002  and  it  is  found
\nthat they are all safe.\n<\/p>\n
While doing the analysis and design it is presumed that the soil is capable of
\nresisting  the  pressure coming on it, 110kN\/m2 and also the settlement of the
\nfoundations will be within the permissible limits.  However it could  be  seen
\nfrom the analysis carried out by IIT, the safe bearing capacity of the soil is
\nonly 72  kN\/M2  and  the  settlement will be beyond the permissible value.  To
\nimprove the safe  bearing  capacity  of  the  soil  and  also  to  reduce  the
\nsettlement,  pressure  grouting of the soil with cement slurry is recommended.
\nFurther a combined raft foundation at the ground level encasing  the  existing
\nplinth beams  is recommended.  The raft shall extend one and half meter beyond
\nthe centre line of the existing external columns alround the  building.    The
\nthree  dimensional analysis is again repeated by modelling the raft slab also.
\nIIT has recommended a modulus of subgrade reaction of 6000 kN\/m3 (Annexure I).
\nWith this value of modulus of subgrade  reaction  soil  is  replaced  by  soil
\nsprings in  the  3D  analysis.    The bending moment diagram obtained from the
\nanalysis is shown in Fig.5.  The raft  is  designed  for  the  bending  moment
\nobtained from  the  analysis  and  details of the raft is shown in Fig.6.  The
\nraft is integrated with the existing columns as shown in Fig.6.    With  these
\nmodifications,  committee  of  the  opinion that the building with ground plus
\nseven floors will be quite safe for occupation.\n<\/p>\n
13.  Now I shall refer the report of Mohan Ramanathan.  He is a B.Tech,  M.S.,
\n(USA) and Consultant.  He is a nominee of the newly impleaded third respondent
\n(neighbour of the petitioner).  The following are the materials\/excerpts:\n<\/p>\n
c) DESIGN CHECK ON THE CORNER COLUMN:\n<\/p>\n
Design check on Corner Column using SP-16 for Biaxial bending reveals that the
\ncolumn section is grossly inadequate to the loads coming on it.\n<\/p>\n
e) REASONS FOR FAILURE
\nThe reasons  for failure of the corner column (J-Type) is quite obvious.  Over
\nloading due to additional stories built.  The excessive noise  generated  from
\nthe  column  at  the  time  of failure and witnessed by persons nearby and the
\nworkers in the building proves release of energy stored in the column  due  to
\nheavy over  loading.   The bent reinforcement rods have no further use to take
\nadditional loads and the column in the  present  state  should  be  considered
\nfailed and unsafe.\n<\/p>\n
CONCLUSION
\nFrom  structural  view  point,  top  4 floors are to be dismantled to make the
\nbuilding safe and the loads on the existing structural members  to  be  within
\nsafe limits  i.e., only car park + 4 livable floors, to be allowed.  Under the
\npresent loading of G + 8 floor, the structural  capacity  of  the  columns  is
\nunsafe.\n<\/p>\n
B.  FOUNDATION CHECK
\nUnder the present loading condition of G + 8 floor, the foundation is unsafe.
\nEXPERT OPINION
\n….The  corner  column failure is enough evidence to prove the criticality of
\nthe situation.  Most of the other columns are also in the same state  and  may
\nfail any time without warning.\n<\/p>\n
After  analysing various consequences from the view of safety of the structure
\nin  question  and  the  neighbouring  structures,  I  have  arrived   at   two
\nalternatives to be considered by the Honourable Court.
\nAlternative -1:\n<\/p>\n
Remove  top  4 floors (8th floor already removed by Corporation of Chennai) to
\ndecrease the loading at the foundation level.  The final  structure  shall  be
\nonly G +4.  In this case, the loads on the structural members such as columns,
\nbeams and  slabs, will be safe and acceptable, structurally.  In such case, no
\nfurther strengthening  need  be  done  for  any  structural  members.      The
\nstrengthening  already  done  at  ground  level  is sufficient to take care of
\nSeismic loading  on  the  truncated  structure.    Due  to  reduction  in  the
\nfoundation loads, the loads at the footing level will be reduced to within the
\nsafe bearing  capacity.    Subsequently,  there  will  be no fear of excessive
\nsettlement or foundation failure.\n<\/p>\n
Alternative -2:\n<\/p>\n
If any more additional floors are to be permitted beyond G +  4  floors,  then
\nthe  structure  will  require  extensive strengthening both for the structural
\nmembers as well as for the foundation.  Without  the  strengthening  measures,
\nthe  additional  floors  will  impose  heavy  loads,  which  are unsafe to the
\nstructure and its foundation.\n<\/p>\n
The maximum number of floors that can be permitted after strengthening of  the
\nfoundation and  structural  members  shall be restricted to G+6 .  This means,
\none more floor is to be  removed  positively  (7th  floor)  from  the  present
\nstructure.\n<\/p>\n
In such case, I suggest the following strengthening measures:\n<\/p>\n
a)  All  structural  columns  have  to be strengthened adequately in all upper
\nfloors to resist static and dynamic loads.\n<\/p>\n
b) Strengthen the foundation by underpinning with minipiles  to  transfer  the
\ncolumn  loads to firm strata occurring at about 20 Metres depth and stitch the
\npiles to the existing footings and also strengthen and redesign  the  footings
\nto act  as  pile caps.  This involves expertise in design, execution and great
\ncaution while execution.\n<\/p>\n
It is seen from his report the existing foundation structure  would  withstand
\nonly  stilt  +  4  floors  and  for  keeping  beyond Ground + 4 floors, he has
\nsuggested certain measures as detailed above.\n<\/p>\n
14.  Now I shall consider the report of the other  Member,  namely,  Mr.    S.
\nRamachandran,   M.E.,   D.I.I.T.,   Superintending   Engineer,   Public  Works
\nDepartment, Planning and Designs Circle (Buildings), Chennai-5.  The following
\nare the materials\/excerpts:\n<\/p>\n
1.0 xx xx
\n2.0 As per the analysis and design results obtained, the columns  need  to  be
\nstrengthened in many floors for the present Stilt + Seven floors.
\n3.00 xx xx
\nIn  this case, after studying the characteristics of the soil lying underneath
\nthe building, it is considered that the foundation needs to  be  strengthened.
\nNow,  the  question  arises as to how the building consisting of Stilt + Eight
\nfloors stood for a considerable time after construction then?  The  reason  is
\nthat  the  normal  factors of safety provided (2.5 in the case of foundations)
\nwere encroached upon.    Hence  the  soil  below  the  foundation  has  to  be
\nstabilised and strengthened by cement slurry grouting and a raft foundation as
\nsuggested by Prof.  Dr.S.R.  Gandhi of I.I.T., Madras.\n<\/p>\n
4.0  Regarding  strengthening  of the building for withstanding the loads from
\nthe presently existing Stilt + Seven floors, the following measures are to  be
\nundertaken:\n<\/p>\n
a)  Complete strengthening of the foundations under expert guidance in design,
\ndetailing and  execution.    This  almost  amounts  to  total  revamp  of  the
\nfoundation system  currently  provided.    Apart from cost considerations, the
\nprocess of re-structuring the foundation is a difficult process and  needs  to
\nbe undertaken with utmost supervision and care.\n<\/p>\n
At  the  end  of  his  report, he has suggested some remedial measures for the
\ncolumns of the building as observed by Dr.   P.K.    Aravindan.    He  finally
\nsuggested   that   for   effective   strengthening   of  the  building,  lucid
\nspecifications, construction methodologies and  step-by-step  procedure  right
\nfrom  selection  of  appropriate  construction materials, chemicals, tools and
\nequipments are to be drafted by experts in this field.  He also suggested that
\nthese works are to be executed under the expert guidance and supervision of  a
\nqualified  senior  structural  engineer  and  that  this  process  of thorough
\nstrengthening of this Stilt + Seven floors building  will  make  it  safe  for
\nhuman dwelling.\n<\/p>\n
15.   The  petitioners,  the  neighbour  as well as Corporation of Chennai and
\nChennai Metropolitan Development Authority filed their objections  in  respect
\nof the  reports  filed  by  the three Experts.  Likewise, the petitioners have
\nalso filed objection with regard to the report of Messrs.    Mohan  Ramanathan
\nand S.  Ramachandran.  Their objections need not be discussed once again.\n<\/p>\n
16.   I have already referred to the fact that planning permission was granted
\nonly for Stilt + four floors by the  Commissioner,Corporation  of  Chennai  by
\nproceedings dated 11-7-2001.  Admittedly, construction was completed for Stilt
\n+ eight  floors  which  is  against  the  sanction.  Accordingly, Stilt + four
\nfloors alone are lawful construction and the construction  above  four  floors
\nare unlawful  and  contrary  to the sanctioned plan.  As rightly argued by the
\nlearned Advocate General, the issue of N.O.C.    for  the  building  does  not
\namount to  grant  of  planning  permission  under  the  Act.  Likewise, merely
\nbecause the owner has paid required charges as per the regularisation  scheme,
\nit  cannot be construed that the Authorities namely Corporation of Chennai and
\nCMDA have condoned the action of the petitioners.  As a  matter  of  fact,  no
\norder  has  been  passed by the CMDA or Government regularising the violations
\nmade by the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
17.  Coming to the report of Mr.  P.K.  Aravindan, nominee of the owner of the
\nbuilding, after investigation and examining the entire building,  particularly
\ncolumn  X16-Y1,  which  is failed, the steel provided in the column is only 41
\nper cent of the requirement.  Dr.  Aravindan has considered  that  the  column
\nwhich  has  failed  and  has analysed it for the axial load and moments due to
\ndead load alone, since at the time of failure the building was unoccupied.  It
\nis not disputed that usually the axial load and moments due to live load  will
\nbe about 20 per cent of those due to dead load.  As rightly argued on the side
\nof the Corporation of Chennai and CMDA, if live load is also being considered,
\nthe reinforcement provided will be only about 30 per cent of what is required.
\nI have  also  considered  the  recommendations  of  Indian  standards.  In his
\nreport, Dr.  Aravindan has also observed that apart  from  failure  of  column
\nX16-Y1, there  might  be  other  columns also somewhat similar conditions.  He
\nalso referred to various details in Table-I.  In Table-I he has indicated  the
\nloads of  all  columns  due to ground plus seven upper floors, i.e.  after the
\ndemolition of the eighth floor and it shows that out of 38 columns, 34 columns
\nare unsafe (vide page 139 of common Spiral type-set) filed by the petitioners.
\nFour columns have been classified as “safe” on the assumption that  the  steel
\nprovided is  more  than  what  is required.  Even this namely what is actually
\nprovided is known only to the contractor who executed the work since the  same
\ncannot be checked now.  No doubt, he has suggested that the building as exists
\nnow  (Ground  plus  7  upper floors) can be strengthened together satisfactory
\nperformance all through out  the  life  of  the  structure  by  following  the
\nmodifications\/ alterations  as  suggested  by  him.    In  this  regard, it is
\nrelevant to refer that Dr.  Aravindan had taken the service of Professor  S.R.
\nGandhi,  Professor  and Consultant, Geotechnical Division, Department of Civil
\nEngineering, I.I.T., Chennai-36.  Here, it is relevant to note that Dr.   S.R.
\nGandhi in  his  letter  dated 16-8-2003 addressed to Professor P.K.  Aravindan
\nhas complained that “…Surprisingly, both the soil investigation reports have
\nnot provided any consolidation test results.  In absence of this data,  it  is
\nvery difficult  to  estimate  the  settlement of the building.  However, it is
\nfelt that the settlement is likely to exceed the permissible limits  for  such
\nfoundations….” In the absence of “soil investigation report” and “settlement
\nof  the  building”,  I  am  of  the  view  that  it is difficult to accept the
\nsuggestions made by Dr.  P.K.  Aravindan, who relied  on  the  advice  of  Dr.
\nS.R.Gandhi.  Dr.   Aravindan has also suggested that the soft clay strata form
\n3.75m to about 8m be improved by cement jet grouting for the  entire  building
\narea plus  2m  wide  area  beyond the edge of the foundation.  It is not clear
\nwhether it would be possible to inject the cement slurry  uniformly  over  the
\nentire  area  in  clay  layer  at  such  depth  and that too with the existing
\nfoundations in place.  Further, cement slurry will not percolate through  clay
\nlayer and that too uniformly.  Dr.  Aravindan has also suggested strengthening
\nof some  columns by jacketing.  I have already referred to that even according
\nto him, it is clear from Table-I that out of a total of 38 columns, 34 columns
\nin ground floor are unsafe and require jacketing.  Same  is  the  case  almost
\nupto fourth floor and certain columns are unsafe even upto fifth floor.  It is
\nclear  that these columns are to be jacketed upto that level by adding a fresh
\nlayer of concrete around the existing  columns  after  adding  required  extra
\nsteel.   Here  again, it is to be noted that the old and the new concrete will
\nact as two different cores and will not act in unison completely.  As  rightly
\npointed  out,  extending  the rods to the next floor through the existing roof
\nbeam will be impracticable.  Even if it is done, there will  be  breaking  the
\nconcrete  at  the junction of beam and column and recasting the same after the
\nrods are extended.  According to the respondents, if this is adopted the  beam
\nunder  loading may separate from the column and fail that will lead to serious
\ndisaster.\n<\/p>\n
18.  Coming to the report of Mr.  Mohan Ramanathan, according to  him,  design
\ncheck  on  the  corner column using SP-16 for Biaxial bending reveals that the
\ncolumn section is grossly inadequate to the loads coming on it.  He has opined
\nthat the reasons for failure of the corner column (J-Type)is over loading  due
\nto additional  stories  built.    He  has  concluded that from structural view
\npoint, top four floors are to be dismantled to make the building safe and  the
\nloads on  the  existing structural members to be within safe limits i.e.  only
\nCar Park place plus four livable  floors  to  be  allowed.    He  has  finally
\nconcluded  that  under  the  present  loading  of  G + 8 floor, the structural
\ncapacity of the columns is unsafe.  He has also  suggested  two  alternatives.
\nAs  per  alternative-1,  the  strengthening  already  done  at ground level is
\nsufficient to take care of Seismic loading on the  truncated  structure.    By
\nremoving top 4 floors to decrease the loading at the foundation level.  Due to
\nreduction  in  the  foundation  loads,  the loads at the footing level will be
\nreduced to within the safe beaming capacity and  there  will  be  no  fear  of
\nexcessive settlement  or foundation failure.  He also suggested alternative-2.
\nAccording to which, if any more additional floors are to be permitted beyond G
\n+ 4 floors, then the structure will require extensive strengthening  both  for
\nthe structural  members  as  well  as  for  the  foundation.  He observed that
\nwithout strengthening measures, the additional floors will impose heavy loads,
\nwhich are unsafe to the structure and its foundation.  He also suggested  that
\nthe  maximum number of floors that can be permitted after strengthening of the
\nfoundation and structural members shall be  restricted  to  Ground  plus  six.
\nThis  means,  one  more floor is to be removed positively (7th floor) from the
\npresent structure.  For adopting alternative-2, he suggested certain  measures
\nfor strengthening  the building.  He also suggested for driving piles upto 20m
\ndepth and connect them to the existing footings.  It is  the  apprehension  of
\nthe  respondents  that  driving  piles  with the ground floor roof in place is
\nimpossible.  Further, stitching the existing footing with the piles will again
\nmean breaking open the footings, exposing their rods,  tying  additional  rods
\nand reconcreting.    This  again  will  mean a construction joint and the same
\ncannot be accepted.  It is the  apprehension  of  the  first  respondent  that
\ndismantling  the  existing foundation and casting a new pile cap is impossible
\nwith keeping the column intact with the load of eight floors  resting  on  it.
\nAs rightly  argued, though he (Mr.  Mohan Ramanathan) has suggested structural
\nstrengthening of columns and other members, he has  not  discussed  in  detail
\nabout the  method  of strengthening.  However, he has indicated that the outer
\ncolumns can take only a maximum of four floor loads.\n<\/p>\n
19.  Coming to the report of Mr.  S.  Ramachandran, according to him,  as  per
\nthe  analysis and design results obtained, the columns need to be strengthened
\nin many floors for the present stilt + 7 floors.  He suggested that soil below
\nthe foundation has to be stabilised and strengthened by cement slurry grouting
\nand a raft foundation as suggested by Prof.Dr.  S.R.Gandhi of I.I.T.,  Madras.
\nRegarding  strengthening  of  the building for withstanding the loads from the
\npresently  existing  stilt  +  seven  floors,  he   has   suggested   complete
\nstrengthening  of  the  foundations under expert guidance in design, detailing
\nand execution.  According to him, this almost amounts to total revamp  of  the
\nfoundation system  currently provided.  He further opined that apart from cost
\nconsiderations, the process of re-structuring the foundation  is  a  difficult
\nprocess and  needs to be undertaken with utmost supervision and care.  He also
\ninformed that  in  the  recently  published  Indian  Standard  for  earthquake
\nresistant  design  of  buildings, IS:1893-2002, Chennai has been brought under
\nZone-III of the seismic zoning map of India.  According to him, this  building
\nhas to be strengthened in accordance with the above code.\n<\/p>\n
20.  Though Mr.R.   Krishnamoorthi  and  Mr.    A.L.  Somayaji, learned senior
\ncounsel  for  the  owner  and  builder  respectively  heavily  relied  on  the
\nsuggestions of the  three  Experts,  particularly  Dr.  P.K.  Aravindan, it is
\nclear from their reports that lesser steel have been used in the columns  than
\nthe minimum as  specified  by  the Indian Standard.  Though Dr.  Aravindan and
\nMohan Ramanathan have referred only about the structural capacities of columns
\nand footing and not about the safety of the beams and slabs, when 34 out of 38
\ncolumns are under reinforced and when the loads provided for them is less than
\nthe absolute minimum for the prescribed standard, it is difficult  to  believe
\nthat the  beams  and  the  slabs  are properly designed and reinforced.  It is
\nrelevant to note that S.  Ramachandran, Superintending Engineer, Public  Works
\nDepartment  has  clearly stated that complete strengthening of the foundations
\nunder expert guidance in design, detailing  and  execution  amounts  to  total
\nrevamp of  the foundation system currently provided.  He added that apart from
\ncost  consideration,  the  process  of  re-structuring  the  foundation  is  a
\ndifficult process and needs to be undertaken with utmost supervision and care.
\nConsidering  all these aspects, I am satisfied that the suggestion made by the
\nthree Experts are not full proof method.  As rightly argued, the public safety
\nshould be taken into account while implementing the suggestions  made  by  the
\nExperts,  more  particularly  when  the steel provided in the column is 41 per
\ncent of the requirement, that too only taking into consideration of dead  load
\nalone and  not  live  load.  In those circumstances, I am unable to accept the
\nsuggestions for keeping the building, namely, stilt plus 7 floors  (8th  floor
\nsince removed).\n<\/p>\n
21.   Now  I  shall  consider  whether  the  action taken by the Commissioner,
\nCorporation of Chennai and Member Secretary, CMDA is in  consonance  with  the
\nstatutory provisions.    I  have  already  referred  to the fact that planning
\npermission was granted in favour of the petitioners for construction of  stilt
\nplus 4  floors (G + 4).  Admittedly, the building was constructed stilt plus 8
\nfloors.  After noticing the concrete pillars in the  multi  storeyed  building
\n(petitioner’s  building)  started cracking and the steel rods were found to be
\nexposed and bent which posed threat to cause damage to the life  and  property
\nof  their  building  and  also  the general public, Paxina Owners’ Association
\nresiding  at  No.10,  Bishop  Wallers  Avenue,  Mylapore  (neighbour  to   the
\npetitioner’s  multi-storeyed building) made a complaint to the Commissioner on
\n27-5-2003.  Section 258 of the M.C.M.C Act enables the  Commissioner  to  take
\nappropriate action  to  prevent  danger  from  such  building.    The relevant
\nprovision reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“258.  Precautions in case of dangerous structures.-(1) If  any  structure  be
\ndeemed by the commissioner to be in a ruinous state or dangerous to passers by
\nor to the occupiers of neighbouring structures, the commissioner may by notice
\nrequire  the  owner or occupier to fence off, take down, secure or repair such
\nstructure so as to prevent any danger therefrom.\n<\/p>\n
(2) If immediate action is  necessary  the  commissioner  may  himself  before
\ngiving  such  notice  or  before  the period of notice expires fence off, take
\ndown, secure or repair such structure or fence off a part  of  any  street  or
\ntake  such  temporary measures as he thinks fit to prevent danger and the cost
\nof doing so shall be recoverable from the owner  or  occupier  in  the  manner
\nprovided in section 387.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  If  in  the  commissioner’s  opinion,  the  said  structure is imminently
\ndangerous to the inmate thereof, the commissioner shall  order  the  immediate
\nevacuation  thereof  and  any  person  disobeying may be removed by any police
\nofficer.”\n<\/p>\n
The above provisions enable the Commissioner to  issue  notice  requiring  the
\nowner or occupier to fence off, take down, secure or repair any structure that
\nwas  found  to  be  in  a  ruinous  state or dangerous to passers by or to the
\noccupiers of neighbouring structures, so as to prevent any  danger  therefrom.
\nIf  the  condition of the structure or building requires immediate action, the
\nCommissioner may himself even before giving notice or  before  the  period  of
\nnotice  expires,  fence  off,  take  down,  secure or repair such structure to
\nprevent danger and recover the cost of doing from the owner or occupier in the
\nmanner provided in Section 387 of the Act.   In  the  counter  affidavit,  the
\nCommissioner,  Corporation  of  Chennai  has  explained that on receipt of the
\ncomplaint dated 27-5-2003, he had given necessary directions to the officials,
\nincluding the City Engineer to inspect the building in question and  submit  a
\nreport.  The City Engineer made an inspection on 27-5-2 003 in the presence of
\nrepresentatives  of the Builders and submitted a report to the Commissioner on
\nthe same day stating that the construction was completed for stilt plus  eight
\nfloors  as  against the sanction of stilt plus four floors and a column in the
\nwest corner had developed cracks due to the reinforcement in the column  which
\nhas been  buckled  and  he  also noticed cracks in the adjacent walls.  In the
\nreport the City Engineer  explained  that  it  is  a  dangerous  building  for
\noccupation.   Based  on  his  report,  the  Commissioner on 27-5-2003 issued a
\nnotice under Section 258 of the M.C.M.C Act, in and by  which  the  petitioner
\nbuilder  was  asked, within 7 days of service of the notice to fence off, take
\ndown, secure and repair such building so as to prevent any  danger  therefrom.
\nIt is further seen from the counter affidavit that on 30-5-2003, he received a
\nreport from  the  Superintending  Engineer,  Public Works Department.  In that
\nreport, the Superintending Engineer mentioned that the  building  in  question
\nwas in  dangerous  condition  posing  threat to the public.  He also mentioned
\nthat the design structure was unsafe  and  the  actual  reinforcement  in  the
\ncolumn is  only 6.78 cm2 (6 Nos.) as against the requirement of 23.85 cm2.  He
\nalso expressed that  the  steel  used  is  just  about  1\/4th  of  the  actual
\nrequirement.   He  further mentioned that as the columns had not been suitably
\ndesigned, the structure was not stable for the  existing  condition  of  stilt
\nplus 8 floors and that the reinforcement provided was just sufficient only for
\nstilt plus  4  floors.    Based  on the report of the Superintending Engineer,
\nPublic Works Department and the City Engineer of Corporation of Chennai, after
\ndue deliberation and  after  satisfying  himself  that  the  building  was  in
\ndangerous  conditions,  posing threat to the life, it was decided to pull down
\nthe unauthorised and unsafe structure  immediately.    In  exercise  of  power
\nconferred on the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai under Section 258 (2) of
\nM.C.M.C.   Act,  notice dated 30-05-2003 was issued by giving 12 hours time to
\npull down the unauthorised structure except  stilt  plus  4  floors  and  also
\nsimultaneously issued  notice  under  Section 378 of the Act.  Apart from this
\nspecific assertion in the counter affidavit,  namely,  the  complaint  by  the
\nneighbours,  inspection  by  the  officials  including  the  City  Engineer on
\n27-5-2003, initial notice, inspection of Superintending Engineer, Public Works
\nDepartment on 30-5-2003 and notice under Section 258 (2) made in  the  counter
\naffidavit,   learned   Advocate  General  has  also  produced  File  from  the
\nCommissioner, Corporation of Chennai which contains all  the  above  mentioned
\nmaterials.   I  have  gone through all the details and I am satisfied that the
\nCommissioner has considered all the relevant materials and by  virtue  of  the
\npower  conferred  under  Section  258  of  the M.C.M.C.Act, taking note of the
\ndesign structure, actual reinforcement  in  the  columns  which  were  unsafe,
\nissued notice  under  sub-section (2) of Section 258.  I have already referred
\nto the fact that the construction and above the permissible  area  namely  5th
\nfloor to  8th floor is an unauthorised one.  In this regard, it is relevant to
\nrefer a decision of the Supreme Court in M.I.  Builders Pvt.  Ltd.  v.  Radhey
\nShyam Sahu<\/a>, reported in (1999) 6 Supreme Court Cases 464.  In  that  decision,
\nTheir  Lordships  have  held  that  if it is an unauthorised construction, the
\nCourt should order demolition of such structure even though  builder  invested
\nconsiderable amount.  The following conclusion\/observation is relevant:  (para\n<\/p>\n
73)<\/p>\n
“73……This  Court  in  numerous  decisions  has  held that no consideration
\nshould be shown to the builder or  any  other  person  where  construction  is
\nunauthorised.  This dicta is now almost bordering the rule of law.  Stress was
\nlaid  by  the appellant and the prospective allottees of the shops to exercise
\njudicial discretion in moulding the relief.    Such  a  discretion  cannot  be
\nexercised   which   encourages   illegality   or  perpetuates  an  illegality.
\nUnauthorised construction, if it is illegal and cannot be compounded,  has  to
\nbe demolished.   There is no way out.  Judicial discretion cannot be guided by
\nexpediency.  Courts are not free from statutory fetters.   Justice  is  to  be
\nrendered in  accordance  with  law.    Judges  are  not  entitled  to exercise
\ndiscretion wearing the robes of judicial  discretion  and  pass  orders  based
\nsolely on  their  personal  predilections and peculiar dispositions.  Judicial
\ndiscretion wherever it is required to be exercised has  to  be  in  accordance
\nwith law and set legal principles…..”.\n<\/p>\n
In  the facts, materials and circumstances demonstrated in the case on hand, I
\nam of the view that the said decision is directly applicable to  the  case  on
\nhand  and  I  hold  that the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai is perfectly
\nright in issuing notice under sub-section (2) of Section 258 and there  is  no
\nground for  interference.    It  is also settled law that even after obtaining
\nplanning permission under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country  Planning  Act,  the
\nconstruction  of  the  building  is  subject  to  fulfilling the provisions of
\nM.C.M.C.  Act.  I conclude that notice issued under Section 258 as well as 378
\nof M.C.M.C.  Act are valid.\n<\/p>\n
22.  Coming to the action taken by the Member Secretary, Chennai  Metropolitan
\nDevelopment  Authority, it is true that the Power of Attorney has submitted an
\napplication for regularisation of the building at No.11 and 12, Bishop Wallers
\nAvenue, Mylapore, Chennai-4 and paid regularisation charges also.  It is  also
\ntrue that  N.O.C.   for power supply and CMWSSB connection of Sewere and Water
\nwas issued by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority in  their  letter
\ndated 11-02-2003.    However, it is brought to my notice that subsequently, on
\n27-5-2003 the construction was inspected and it  was  noticed  development  of
\nsome  cracks  in  one of the columns and due to this, the front main wall also
\ndevelped with  cracks.    Therefore,  a  show  cause  notice  was  issued  for
\ncancellation of  N.O.C.    in  their  letter dated 28-5-2 003 and the same was
\nacknowledged by the owner on 29-5-2003.  The owner  had  sent  a  reply  dated
\n31-5-2003  stating  that  remedial measures are being taken by appointing Swiz
\nMultinational Company.  Though Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority  has
\nissued  N.O.C  for  getting  power supply, sewere and water connection, in the
\nlight of the provisions of M.C.M.C.  Act, I am of the view that the  issue  of
\nN.O.C.  for the building does not amount to grant of planning permission under
\nthe Act.    As  on  date,  the construction of the building more and above the
\nplanning permission issued by the concerned authority stands unauthorised.  In
\nthose circumstances, the action  taken  by  Chennai  Metropolitan  Development
\nAuthority forfeiting the security deposit cannot be faulted with.\n<\/p>\n
23.   In  the  light  of  what is stated above, I do not find any merit in the
\nclaim made by the petitioners and  I  hold  that  the  actions  taken  by  the
\nCommissioner,  Corporation  of  Chennai  and  the  Member  Secretary,  Chennai
\nMetropolitan Development  Authority  are  in  accordance  with  the  statutory
\nprovisions and  they  are  within  their  powers.   Therefore, I hold that the
\nCommissioner, Corporation of Chennai is fully justified in directing the owner
\nand the Builder to demolish the unauthorised construction,  except  the  stilt
\nplus  four  floors  in  premises  No.11  and 12, Bishop Wallers Avenue (South)
\nMylapore, Chennai-4.  Equally,  the  Member  Secretary,  Chennai  Metropolitan
\nDevelopment  Authority  is  also  fully  justified  in forfeiting the security
\ndeposit.  Consequently, all  the  Writ  Petitions  fail  and  are  accordingly
\ndismissed.  No costs.  All the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n
R.B.\n<\/p>\n
Index:- Yes
\nInternet:- Yes<\/p>\n
To:-\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Commissioner,
\nCorporation of Chennai,
\nChennai-600 003.\n<\/p>\n
2.  Member Secretary,
\nChennai Metropolitan Development
\nAuthority, Gandhi Irwin Road,
\nChennai-8.\n<\/p>\n
\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Mrs. A. Sreedevi vs The Commissioner on 23 September, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 23\/09\/2003 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM Writ Petition No. 15952 of 2003 and W.P.Nos. 17159 and 17186 of 2003 and W.P.M.P.Nos.20023, 21497, 21451, 21496, 21450 of 2003 and W.V.M. P.No. 1129 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-260886","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMrs. A. Sreedevi vs The Commissioner on 23 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-a-sreedevi-vs-the-commissioner-on-23-september-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mrs. A. Sreedevi vs The Commissioner on 23 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-a-sreedevi-vs-the-commissioner-on-23-september-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-03T17:59:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"41 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-a-sreedevi-vs-the-commissioner-on-23-september-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-a-sreedevi-vs-the-commissioner-on-23-september-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mrs. A. Sreedevi vs The Commissioner on 23 September, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-03T17:59:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-a-sreedevi-vs-the-commissioner-on-23-september-2003\"},\"wordCount\":8204,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-a-sreedevi-vs-the-commissioner-on-23-september-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-a-sreedevi-vs-the-commissioner-on-23-september-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-a-sreedevi-vs-the-commissioner-on-23-september-2003\",\"name\":\"Mrs. A. Sreedevi vs The Commissioner on 23 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-03T17:59:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-a-sreedevi-vs-the-commissioner-on-23-september-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-a-sreedevi-vs-the-commissioner-on-23-september-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-a-sreedevi-vs-the-commissioner-on-23-september-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mrs. A. Sreedevi vs The Commissioner on 23 September, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mrs. A. Sreedevi vs The Commissioner on 23 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-a-sreedevi-vs-the-commissioner-on-23-september-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mrs. A. Sreedevi vs The Commissioner on 23 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-a-sreedevi-vs-the-commissioner-on-23-september-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-03T17:59:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"41 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-a-sreedevi-vs-the-commissioner-on-23-september-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-a-sreedevi-vs-the-commissioner-on-23-september-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mrs. A. Sreedevi vs The Commissioner on 23 September, 2003","datePublished":"2003-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-03T17:59:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-a-sreedevi-vs-the-commissioner-on-23-september-2003"},"wordCount":8204,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-a-sreedevi-vs-the-commissioner-on-23-september-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-a-sreedevi-vs-the-commissioner-on-23-september-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-a-sreedevi-vs-the-commissioner-on-23-september-2003","name":"Mrs. A. Sreedevi vs The Commissioner on 23 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-03T17:59:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-a-sreedevi-vs-the-commissioner-on-23-september-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-a-sreedevi-vs-the-commissioner-on-23-september-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-a-sreedevi-vs-the-commissioner-on-23-september-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mrs. A. Sreedevi vs The Commissioner on 23 September, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260886","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=260886"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260886\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260886"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260886"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260886"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}