(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J) Writ petition has been filed for a mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4, to demolish the unauthorised construction, built at Plot No.31, bearing Door No.1/253, R.S.Nagar Patel Street, Jalladianpet, Chennai 100, shows that the petitioner is residing in a flat, owned by her daughter and son-in-law, as per the plan approval, vide plan permit No.1403 of 2009, by the then Panchayat Union, St. Thomas Mount, Chitlapakkam.
2. According to the petitioner, G.Rajendran/sixth respondent, owns a residential Plot No.31, bearing Door No.1/253, R.S.Nagar Patel Street, Jalladianpet, Chennai 100. He has put up commercial and residential buildings, with four shops, without planning approval. Petitioner has sent a complaint, dated 12/9/2016, to the first and second respondents, against the sixth respondent. On the direction of the second respondent, The Assistant Engineer, (Zone-14), Division 191, Chennai/fifth respondent, inspected the construction site. Based on his inspection report, the second respondent was stated to have stopped the ongoing construction work and the same was http://www.judis.nic.incommunicated to the petitioner, vide, letter, dated 22/11/2016.
3. Writ petitioner has contended that on 13/9/2016, son of the sixth respondent and six other rowdy elements, threatened the petitioner with dire consequences for which son of the petitioner, lodged a complaint with S-10 Pallikaranai Police Station, which was refused to be taken on file and therefore, the complaint was sent through Speed Post, on the same day, i.e., on 13/9/2016.
4. Writ petitioner has further contended that though stop order was stated to have been issued, on 20/9/2016 and communicated to the writ petitioner, vide letter, dated 22/11/2016, the sixth respondent again started continuing the unauthorised construction. Though on 7/7/2015, fifth respondent inspected the site, he failed to take any action.
5. Writ petitioner has further contended that on 11/7/2017, the sixth respondent along with four rowdy elements, claimed to be Advocates, came to her house, abused and threatened the petitioner that First Information Report would be lodged against her practising son. In this regard, a complaint was made to Pallikaranai Police http://www.judis.nic.inStation. Mr.Aramvalartha Nambi, Sub-Inspector of Police, Pallikaranai Police Station and constable named Mr.John, came to her house and threatened for preferring a complaint against the unauthorised construction, which necessitated the petitioner's son, to prefer a complaint with Additional Commissioner of Police, South Camp, Chennai city, vide reference C.No.693/DC-STM/ACOP/CAMP/17.
6. The writ petitioner has contended that the Inspector of Police, Pallikaranai Police Station, threatened her son. On 12/7/2017, fifth respondent, pasted a show cause notice, dated 10/7/2017, demanding the plan approval of the building, for which he sought for ten days time to respond. The fifth respondent, refused to accept the representation, dated 14/7/2017, submitted in person and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to send the same through Speed Post.
7. According to the petitioner, on 15/7/2017, fifth respondent, along with some other persons, claimed to be Corporation Officials, trespassed into the house of the property, under the guise of inspection, for which legal notice, dated 19/7/2017, has been issued.
8. The petitioner further contended that through RTI reply, the http://www.judis.nic.insecond respondent had admitted that the construction over Plot No.31, bearing Door No.1/253 in R.S.Nagar Patel Street, Jalladianpet, Chennai 100 is an unauthorised construction and no plan approval was given by the competent authority. According to the petitioner, despite the same, respondents 1 to 4 have not come forward to take action against the sixth respondent. Respondents 1 to 4 have failed to discharge their duties, as envisaged in Sections 56 & 57 of the Tamil Nadu Town & Country Planning Act, 1971 and Section 256 of Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919.
9. When the matter stood thus, the fifth respondent has issued a notice, dated 10/8/2017, alleging that construction of the writ petitioner is unauthorised. The sixth respondent has put to use one portion of the said unauthorised construction, resulting in dumping of garbage through window into her house. On 22/10/2017, the sixth respondent and his wife Mrs.Vanitha, again hired rowdy elements, under the guise of Advocates and trespassed into the house, assaulting the family. The petitioner has contended that her daughter sustained a brutal blow on her face, for which a complaint was lodged. She also came to know that behind the back, the Inspector of Police has registered a complaint, dated 13/7/2017, against her son, a practising http://www.judis.nic.inAdvocate. On the directions given in Criminal Original Petition No.14285 of 2017. On the above averments, the petitioner has sought for a mandamus, as stated supra.
10. When the matter came up for admission, Mr.K.Soundararajan, Standing Counsel for Corporation is put on notice.
11. Material on record discloses that on 12/9/2016, a complaint has been made to the respondents 1 and 2 about the alleged illegal construction. In response to the letter, dated 30/9/2016, addressed to the Public Information Officer, Zonal Officer (Zone 14), Corporation of Chennai, a reply, dated 19/10/2016, has been sent to the writ petitioner as hereunder:-
Sub: Greater Corporation of Chennai – information Under Right to Information Act 2005 – Information provided – Reg.
Ref: Your letter Dated : 30.09.2016 Received in this office on Date : 04.10.2016 - - -
With reference to your RTI petition cited above, the following information related to Zone-14 are furnished
12. Thereafter, on 22/11/2016, Zonal Officer, Zone 14, Corporation Chennai, has sent a letter, dated 22/11/2016, to the writ petitioner, intimating that action has been taken, site has been inspected and unauthorised construction has been stopped. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police, S.10 Pallikaranai, Chennai, seemed to have issued a notice, on 22/11/2016, to the son of the writ petitioner, for enquiring into vehicular inconvenience. On 5/12/2016, son of the writ petitioner has sent a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery. Details of which are extracted hereunder:-
Sub: Complaint dated 13.09.2016 http://www.judis.nic.in Ref: PG/8590/90169/2016 on the file of S-10, Pallikaranai Police Station I am as above. I have made complaint dated 13.09.2016 against the son of Mr. Rajendran, residing at No.1/253, R.S.Nagar Patel Street, Jalladianpet, Pallikaranai, Chennai – 100, before the Inspector of Police, S-10 Pallikaranai Police Station through speed post (my complaint dated 13.09.2016 may be read with this complaint).
On 01.12.2016, a constable came up to my residence serving on me a “Police Notice” demanding me to be present in the Pallikaranai Police Station at 10.00 A.M. I presented myself before the Pallikaranai Police Station but the Inspector of Police was not present. I was made to wait for no good reason but only on pretext that Inspector is on his way to the station.
The Sub-Inspector, Mr Kumaravel, working in the same Police Station gave phone No.9498143890 and asked me to talk with Inspector of the S-10 station and as such I contacted him but he was unavailable. Lastly on very same day by 2 P.M, the said Inspector of Police attended the call and http://www.judis.nic.in informed to meet him by 6.00 P.M. Without any valid purpose, the Police Notice ref: PG/8590/90169/2016 was served on me as empty formality without proceeding with the said complaint resulting in frustation and humiliation. The notice was served on the very same when the inquiry was purported to be held. Hence, the notice caused on me is mere empty formality to defeat my complaint. The Inspector of Police, knowing well aware about his duty cycle and he would not be present in the station by 10 A.M, had wantonly made me come by 10 A.M in order to cause mental agony.
For whole day, I was made to wait for no good reason. The accused mentioned in complaint is an influential person having money and muscle power in the locality. Hence in connivance of the accused in my complaint dated 13.09.2016, the said officers are not entertaining my complaint and making me to run pillar to post.
The accused along with his family members are harrasing me and my family member on daily basis. The accused and his family members are threatening with dire consequences and to foist false case against me and my family. The offense is of continuing nature and the officers in-charge of the station are indifferent towards my complaint. Hence, kindly take necessary steps to take up my complaint at the earliest and protect me and my family from the accused and his family.”
13. On 10/7/2017, AEE/Unit – 43, has issued a notice, under Sections 56 and 57 read with Section 85 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (Tamil Nadu Act, 35 of 1972, as amended by Act, 61 of 2008) to the owner in Door No.1/254A, R.S.Nagar Patel Street, Jalladiyanpet, Chennai 100, directing him to produce the copy of the approved plan, in original for verification and if no approved plan is available or the construction is in deviation to the approved plan, and requested to confirm in writing the fact of having done so, within three days from the date of receipt of notice, dated 10/7/2017, which is extracted hereunder:-
http://www.judis.nic.in “Your building under reference was inspected. You are requested to produce a copy of the approved plan in original for verification and if no approved plan is available or the construction is in deviation to the approved plan, you are requested to confirm in writing the fact of having done so, within 3 days from the date of receipt of this notice.
If you fail to comply with this notice within the stipulated time, this Authoritiy will be constrained to taking legal aaction against the construction, including locking and sealing of the premises, seizure and confiscation of construction materials, auction of the materials seized, demolition of the building, prosecution of the owner, discontinunce of usage, recovery of coast of expenses as arrears of land revenue etc, under the provision of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, as amended by Act 61 of 2008.
You may also note that once the building is sealed, it is the responsibility of the owner / occupier to provide security for such sealed premises, as per the provision of the said Act.”
14. When the matter stood thus, son of the writ petitioner has sent a further complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai, alleging that the sixth respondent through local Police, exerted pressure on him and his family to withdraw all the complaints. Complaint registered in C.No.693/DC-STM/ACOP/CAMP/17, is extracted hereunder:-
http://www.judis.nic.in http://www.judis.nic.in “I am residing at above address and practising as advocate in Madras High Court. On 11/7/2017, Mr.G.Rajendran, son of T.Ganesan, residing at 1/218, R.S.Nagar Patel Street, Jalldianpet, Pallikaranai, Chennai 600 100 along with 6 rowdy people claiming to be advocate came to my house and abused my mother with abusive words and ill-treated fought with for sending complaint to Corporation of Chennai for stopping unauthorised construction in the above said flat. The said incident happened at I and my sister absence. My mother alone stay till we (me and my sister) both reach to our house. My mother informed me and my sister about incidents. My sister called for emergency number 100 and Mr.Aramvalartha Nambi (9498131243) and Mr.John (Mob.No.8778329804), police from Pallikaranai Police Station, arrived at the spot and threatened my mother to stop giving such complaint. If any more complaints received from my mother or me then the Police would lodge false me and threaten to spoil my future. Earlier, I had made a complaint dated 13/9/2016 to the Inspector of Police to which no action was taken and on 29/11/2016, I made complaint to your office regarding the incident but the Inspector of Police, Pallikaranai closed the complaint as if I didn't cooperate. Mr.G.Rajendran, having money and political influence threatening me and my family and trying to coercive steps to withdraw my complaint from various offices and further through local Police Station exerting pressure on me and my family to withdraw all complaints under the threat of registering FIR against me. In addition to that, son of Rajendran, name unknown to me, issue threat to my sister whenever my sister travel through road. Kindly take necessary steps to initiate appropriate action against the delinquents at the earliest and to conduct fair investigation and protect our family life into the issue as the local police are colluding with G.Rajendran and his family.”
15. Thereafter, through a lawyer's notice, dated 19/7/2017, addressed to the Assistant Engineer, Corporation of Chennai (Zone – IV), Old Panchayat Building, Pallikaranai, Chennai 600 100, petitioner has reiterated that there are violations in the construction. Violator along with rowdy elements came to her house, abused and threatened with dire consequences. Despite the same, no action was taken by the Assistant Engineer, Corporation of Chennai (Zone – IV), Chennai 100.
16. Material on record discloses that when the writ petitioner through her lawyer, sought for certain details, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Appellate authority, Zonal Officer/Zone 14, Greater Corporation of Chennai, No.6/64 Puzhuthivakkam Main Road, Chennai 600 091, under the said Act has answered as hereunder:-
17. Thereafter, Assistant Engineer, seemed to have requested the Sub-Inspector of Police, Law & Order, Pallikaranai Police Station, to provide security to stop construction in his letter dated 15/7/2017. In the above said letter, Assistant Engineer, Corporation of Chennai, has categorically stated that though the sixth respondent has acknowledged the notice to stop construction, continues with the same and therefore, security has to be provided. Though letter, dated 15/7/2017, is stated to have been acknowledged and also reflected in C.S.R.No.819 of 2017, by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pallikaranai Police Station, there are no materials indicating that security has been provided to the Corporation officials. By letter, dated 10/8/2016, the Assistant Engineer, Division No.191, Chennai, has sent a letter once again to sixth respondent, to submit the approved plan, failing which construction would be treated as unauthorised, for further action.
18. Material on record further discloses that on 22/10/2017, a complaint has been made to the Inspector of Police, Pallikaranai Police Station by one Aruna, daughter of the writ petitioner that wife of the sixth respondent son and others have trespassed into her property and slapped her. Details of the complaint, dated 22/10/2017, is extracted hereunder:-
ehd; nkw;fz;l Kfthpapy; trpj;J tUfpnwd;/ 22/10/2017 ,d;W fhiy 11/30 kzpastpy; tdpjh kw;Wk; mtuJ kfd;. tHf;fwp"u; bry;tFkhu kw;Wk; mtUld; te;j K:d;wpw;Fk; nkw;gl;l bgau; bjhpahj. ghu;j;jhy; milahsk; fhl;lf;Toa tHf;fwp"u;fs; mj;J kPwp vd;Dila tPl;oDs;
EiHe;J kjpy; Rtu; fl;l Mukgpj;jdu;/ Vd;
vd; tPl;oy; mj;J kPwp EiHe;J kjpy; Rtu fl;l Muk;gpf;fpd;wPu;fs;. vJthf ,Ue;jhYk;
rl;lj;jpw;F cl;gl;L braa ntz;Lk; vd;W Twpajw;F. tHf;fwp"u; bry;tFkhu; mtufs eh';fs; mg;goj;jhd; bra;nthk; vd;W vd;id Mghrkhf ngrpf; bfhz;nl vd; fd;dj;jpy; X';fp gshu; vd;W miwe;jhu;/ mij jLf;f te;j vd;Dila mk;kh khyh mtufisa[k gshu; vd;W fd;dj;jpy; miwej kw;Wk; vd;Dila jkg;
hu;/ piaak ; btspapy ,Ue;J te;j egu; Mntrkhf mof;f Xote;jhu;/ mtu;fs; te;j fhu; (ehd;F rf;fu tz;o) vz;/TN-07-BS-0595 MFk;/ ,ttst[ gpur;rpidfSf;Fk; fhuzk; tdpjh kw;Wk; mtuJ kfd; J}z;Ljypd; bgahpy; tHf;fwp"u;
bry;tFkhu; kw;Wk; mtUld; te;j K:d;wpw;Fk nkw;gl;l tHf;fwp"u; Fk;gy; jhd;/ mtufs moj;jjw;F tPonah Mjhuk; cs;sJ/ vdnt rKfk; mtuf s; nkwf zl;
egu;fs; kJ chpa eltofi f vLjJ vd;ida[k; vd; FLk;gj;jhiua[k; ghJfhg;g[ bfhLf;Fk;go gzptl d; nfl;Lf; bfhsf pnwd;/
19. Sub-Inspector of Police, has acknowledged the said complaint in C.S.R.No.1257 of 2017.
20. From the material on record it could be deduced that an unauthorised construction has been brought to the notice of the authorities. There has been a constant tussle between the petitioner, her son, sixth respondent and others. Though stop notice is issued, construction is stated to have continued. There are no material to indicate that the Assistant Engineer, or the higher authorities have taken up the matter to the higher Police officials, on the aspect of failure to provide security to the Corporation officials to stop unauthorised construction. Details of the information furnished by the Appellate authority, Zonal Officer, Zone 14, Greater Corporation, Chennai, indicates that total extent of 264 Sq.ft has been constructed unauthorisedly, without any plan. Police is bound to assist the Corporation/CMDA in enforcing the statutory provisions whenever security is sought for. In the case on hand, from the materials, it could be deduced that though complaint and counter complaints have been preferred. Question as to the whether Inspector of Police, Pallikaranai, has rendered assistance to the Corporation/CMDA authorities, or was a mute spectator, is certainly the matter to be enquired into by the higher authority, for the reason that if any unauthorised illegal construction is made, then action taken under the provisions of Sections 56 & 57 of the Tamil Nadu Town & Country Planning Act, 1971 and Section 256 of Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, would be ineffective and unenforceable against the violators.
21. In the light of the above discussion and observation, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, suo motu implead the the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, as sixth respondent in this writ petition and direct enquiry into the whole episode, take appropriate action, if required. The Commissioner of Corporation, Chennai/first respondent is directed to enquire into the petitions, submitted by the petitioner and issue http://www.judis.nic.insuitable directions to the respondents 2 to 4, to take appropriate action to enforce the provisions in letter and spirit.
22. Mr.K.N.Thambidurai, learned Special Government Pleader is directed to take notice, on behalf of the Commissioner of Police, and communicate the orders of this Court along with the entire set of papers filed in the writ petition.
23. Mr.K. Soundararajan, learned Standing counsel appearing for the Corporation is also directed to intimate the orders of this Court for implementation in letter and spirit.
24. With the above directions, writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
mvs.
Note: Issue order copy on 23/11/2017 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No (S.M.K., J.) (R.S.K.J) 20th November 2017 To
1. The Commissioner of Corporation Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Building Chennai 600 003.
2. The Zonal Officer (Zone – 14) Greater Chennai Corporation 6/64 Puzhuthivakkam Main Road Puzhuthivakkam Chennai 600 091.
3. The Executive Engineer (Zone 14) Division 191 Puzhuthivakkam Chennai 600 091.
4. The Assistant Engineer (Zone 14) Division 191 6/64 Verathamman Kovil Street Jalladianpet Chennai 600 100.
5. Mr.R.Mathiazhagan The Assistant Engineer (Zone 14) Division 191 6/64 Verathamman Kovil Street Jalladianpet Chennai 600 100.
6. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Chennai.
S.MANIKUMAR,J & R.SURESH KUMAR,J mvs.
Writ Petition No.29572 of 2017 20/11/2017