In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 13.2.2008 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice S.J.Mukhopadhaya and The Honourable Mr.Justice M.Venugopal Writ Appeal No.1551 of 2007 & M.P.No.2 of 2007 K.Raghavan .. Appellant/Respondent vs. 1. K.Ramakrishnan 2. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai-3. 3. The Asst. Commissioner, Zone-4, Ayanavaram, Chennai-600 023. .. Respondents/Petitioner Writ Appeal under clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of this Court dated 24.7.2006 in Writ Petition No.23329 of 2006 under Article 226 of constitution of India, to issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropirate writ, order or orders or direction in the nature of writ directing the respondents 1 and 2 especially the first respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 29.01.2005 removing the unauthorised construction put up by the third respondent deviating the approved plan No.2977/1999 sanctioned by the Corporation Chennai dated 17.05.1999 after due notice and enquiry inaccordance with law. For appellant : Mr.G.Rajan For respondents: Mr.A.Amal Raj for R-1 Mr.V.Bharathidasan for RR-2 & 3 Judgment (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.J.Mukhopadhaya,J) This Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who was third respondent in the Writ Petition, against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 24.7.2006 in W.P.No.23329 of 2006. 2. In the said Writ Petition filed by the contesting first respondent herein-K.Ramakrishan, while alleging unauthorised https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ construction put up by the appellant herein, deviating the approved plan No.2977/1999 sanctioned by the Corporation of Chennai on 17.5.1999, it was pleaded that a representation in this regard had been filed by him. The learned single Judge having noticed that the contesting first respondent/writ petitioner, without preferring any appeal as against the judgment and decree passed in a suit for declaration, which was filed by the appellant herein against the first respondent/Writ Petitioner him, had moved before this Court and therefore, without going into the merits of the case, directed the Corporation of Chennai to consider and dispose of his representation dated 29.1.2005 after notice to the appellant (the third respondent in the Writ Petition) and the first respondent herein (writ petitioner). 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the said Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent herein, just to harass the appellant, as the suit was decreed in favour of the appellant against the first respondent herein. It was further submitted that the learned single Judge without giving notice to the appellant (the third respondent in the Writ Petition), has passed the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/Writ Petitioner, submitted that before filing the present appeal, the appellant has already submitted representation before the authorities of the Corporation of Chennai and the first respondent has also filed his reply. Only thereafter, the present Writ Appeal has been preferred. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and noticed the impugned order. 6. In view of the fact that the learned single Judge has not decided the case on merits, and simply asked the Corporation of Chennai to decide the representation, we are of the view that the appellant should have raised all these questions before the Corporation of Chennai instead of preferring this Writ Appeal. So far as the judgment and decree passed in the said suit is concerned, if any declaration has been made in favour of the appellant and against the first respondent (Writ Petitioner), it may be brought to the notice of the Corporation of Chennai, but it will always be open for the Corporation of Chennai to find out whether any deviation has been made by any of the landholders beyond the approved plan of the building. Such power being vested with the Corporation of Chennai under the provisions of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the learned single Judge. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. The Writ Appeal is dismissed with the above observation. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar cs To 1. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai-3. 2. The Asst. Commissioner, Zone-4, Ayanavaram, Chennai-600 023. +1cc to Ms/. G.Rajan, Advocate Sr 7808 +1cc to M/s.A.Amal Raj, Advocate Sr 7267 AVM (CO) km/19.2. Writ Appeal No.1551 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/