1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:09.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P(MD)No.8910 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 Thiru.Chandrasekara Vellayan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director, Town and Country Planning, Chennai- 600 005. 2.The Local Planning Authority, Tiruchirappalli- 620 001. 3.The Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation, Tiruchirappalli- 620 001. 4.Thiru.Vivekanandan .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein from in any way granting planning permission or building plan approval to the fourth respondent herein in respect of Plot No.9, situated in Old Block No.60, Ward No.30, Old.T.S.No.3887, New Ward G. bearing T.S.27/3A without hearing the petitioner's objections and consequently directing the respondents 1 to 3 to prevent the fourth respondent from putting up any illegal construction in petitioner's plot No.8, without the house site approval and building plan approval in the disputed property. For Petitioner : Mrs.Hema Sampath (S.C)for Mr.R.Subramanian For R-1 and R-2 : Mr.TR.Janarthanam, Additional Govt. Pleader For R-3 : Mr.P.Srinivas For R-4 : Notice is dispensed with O R D E R This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the the respondents 1 to 3 herein from in any way granting planning permission or building plan approval to the fourth respondent herein in respect of Plot No.9, situated in Old Block No.60, Ward No.30, Old.T.S.No.3887, New Ward G. bearing T.S.27/3A without hearing the petitioner's objections and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to prevent the fourth respondent from putting up any illegal construction in petitioner's plot No.8, without the house site approval and building plan approval in the disputed property. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. Heard Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned senior counsel for Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.TR.Janarthanam, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for R-1 and R-2 and Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel, who takes notice for R-3. 3. In view of the order that is to be passed, notice is dispensed with for R-4. 4. By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 5. The petitioner has sent a representation to the respondents 1 to 3 on 04.05.2011, ventilating his grievance with regard to plan approval granted to the fourth respondent. Since no action has been taken up so far, the petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition. 6. Without going into the merits of the petitioner's claim, the third respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.05.2011, on its own merits and in accordance with law. However, if the right of the fourth respondent will be in any way affected by such proceedings, the authority shall put the said person on notice so as to avoid the allegations of violation of principles of natural justice. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim. 7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Director, Town and Country Planning, Chennai- 600 005. 2.The Local Planning Authority, Tiruchirappalli- 620 001. 3.The Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation, Tiruchirappalli- 620 001. +1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.NO.27008 +1cc to Mr.P.Srinivas, Advocate, SR.No.27085 pm : : GH : 23.08.2011 : 2p/6c W.P.(MD)No.8910 of 2011 09.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/