1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.2350 OF 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 201 P.Pitchaiah .. Petitioner -Vs-. 1.The Director, Town & Country Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Rep.by its Commissioner, Alagar Kovil Road, Madurai. .. Respondents This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in proceeding No.Na.Ka.9862/10BA1 dated 14.06.2010 and the consequential order of the second respondent in NE4/14145/10 dated 05.10.2010 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further direct the second respondent to grant a planning permission to the petitioner to his property situated at No.17, Vinayagar Nagar, Ward No.VIII, Madurai. For Petitioner :Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondents :Mr.M.Govindan, Spl Government Pleader for R1 Mr.M.Ravishankar for R2 - - - - ORDER The petitioner had questioned the levy of Infrastructure and Basic Amenities Charges by the local planning authorities. When earlier writ petitions were filed challenging Section 59 of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, a division bench of this court in M.Chandru Vs. Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority reported in 2007 (1) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 CTC 353 had upheld the said power. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in M.Chandru Vs. Member- Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority reported in 2009 (1) CTC 835 (SC) = 2009 (4) SCC 72 had held that the levy of development charges under Section 59 only is a fee. Since in that case, the State had not produced any material whatsoever before the High Court, which was required for meeting the challenge of imposition of fee, the matter was remanded back to this Court. Those matters are pending before a Division Bench. 2.Subsequently, persons who were similarly placed, questioned the constitutional validity of Sections 63B and 63C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (for short TCP Act) introduced by Tamil Nadu Act 34 of 2007 as well as the statutory rules known as the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning (Levy of Infrastructure and Amenities Charges) Rules, 2008 (for short 2008 Rules). 3.Even those provisions were upheld by this court vide its judgment in Sundaram Auto Components Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2011 (4) CTC 240. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any unreasonable levy of infrastructure and amenities charges, it is always open to them to avail the appellate remedy provided under the rule. In the very same judgment, after referring to the appeal provisions found under Rule 10 providing for an appeal, this court held that unless an aggrieved person exhausts the remedy of filing an appeal, no relief can be granted [See : paragraphs 70 to 74]. 4.In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stands closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Director, Town & Country Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Alagar Kovil Road, Madurai +One cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate, SR.No.38738 vvk/gsr rl/4 c- 23.11.2011 W.P.NO.2350 of 2011 09.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/