IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 09.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.9267 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 Saraswathy ... Petitioner -Vs.- 1.The Assistant Commissioner, West Zone, Corporation of Coimbatore, Coimbatore. 2.The Commissioner, Corporation of Coimbatore, Coimbatore. 3.G.Subramaniam ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings of the first respondent made in Na.Ka.No.8160/2006/H1(May), dated 04.04.2008 after calling for the records and perusing the same. For petitioner : Mr.N.Anand Venkatesh For respondents : Mr.J.Sathya Narayana Prasad for R1 and R2 Mr.R.T.Doraisamy (R3) ----- O R D E R The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 04.04.2008 cancelling the planning permission granted in her favour. 2. The petitioner, owner of the property in Ward No.(H)-8, Block.13, T.P.Road, Coimbatore, obtained a building plan sanction by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proceedings dated 25.09.2006. The property, according to the petitioner, vested in her by virtue of the compromise decree passed by this court in A.S.No.1418 of 1988, dated 06.10.2004. It appears that the third respondent has given some complaint that the petitioner is encroaching into his property. A notice was issued by the first respondent for enquiry and the petitioner also attended the enquiry. The specific case of the petitioner is that planning permission was sought for and granted for construction of the building only in the land allotted to the petitioner in the compromise decree and there is no violation whatsoever. The first respondent on the other hand passed the impugned proceedings on 04.04.2008 stating that the petitioner has suppressed the compromise decree and therefore, the building permit deserves to be cancelled and accordingly it was cancelled. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the impugned proceedings and contended as follows. (i) The reason for cancelling the building permit given is totally inappropriate and without application of mind as to what is the nature of suppression and how it has affected the building permit already granted has not been stated in the order. (ii) The impugned proceedings refers to an order passed by the second respondent/the Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation, dated 20.12.2007 and the same has not been disclosed to the petitioner. (iii) The impugned order does not speak about the nature of complaint given by the third respondent. Therefore, for all the above said reasons, the impugned order is to be set aside. 4. Interim Stay was granted by this court on 16.04.2008. No counter has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 so far. The third respondent, the co-owner of the petitioner, appeared through his counsel and stated that there is no dispute as on today and he has no objection for the building permit given to the petitioner. 5. The impugned order on the face of it does not disclose the reasons as to how the compromise decree affects the planning permission granted earlier. It is bereft of reasons and shows total non-application of mind. In any event, no proper show cause notice was issued for cancellation of the building permit calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the permit already granted in her favour should not be cancelled and that goes to the root of the matter. The impugned proceedings is, therefore, arbitrary. Furthermore, since the third respondent, who had earlier given a complaint has now stated that there is no dispute with regard to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ property. The first respondent ought not to have cancelled the building permit merely on the basis that the compromise decree has not been referred to without giving the reason as to how it affects the permit. In any event, the authority could have called upon the petitioner to submit the compromise decree and sought for explanation before cancelling the building permit which has not been done in the present case. 6. For all the above said reasons, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected M.P. is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar True Copy/- Sub Assistant Registrar krr/mps To 1.The Assistant Commissioner, West Zone, Corporation of Coimbatore, Coimbatore. 2.The Commissioner, Corporation of Coimbatore, Coimbatore. +1 CC to Mr.N. Anand Venkatesh Advocate sr 33162 W.P.No.9267 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 RSY-CO KV- 12/07/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/