IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date:28.4.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.11770 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 P.L.Muthukaruppan, ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Member-Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai-600 008. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 27.3.2011 pending in Appeal No. 8383/UD6/2011 within a reasonable time as may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Anand Venkatesh For Respondents : Mr.S.Shivashanmugam, Government Advocate for R1 Mr.C.Kathiravan, for R2 ----- O R D E R Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 27.3.2011 pending in Appeal No. 8383/UD6/2011 within a reasonable time as may be fixed by this Court. 2. Mr.S.Shivashanmugam, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the first respondent. Mr.C.Kathiravan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. By consent of all the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. Petitioner obtained a building permit from the Corporation of Chennai and notice was issued on 21.12.2010 by the second respondent pointing out certain discrepancies in the building. Consequent thereupon the petitioner submitted a revised plan on 2.2.2011 and paid necessary charges. On receipt of the revised plan, the second respondent passed another proceedings on 16.3.2011 declining to grant the planning permission pointing out certain defects. One of the defects pointed out by the second respondent is that the height of building is excess by 0.1 meter and the stilt floor height is excess by 0.20 meters. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has filed an appeal dated 27.3.2011 to the first respondent inter alia contending that the building rules provide for condoning such minimal and marginal violations and that should not be the reason to reject the planning permission and the rejection is without basis. There is no major deviation or violation for rejecting the planning permission. The appeal is stated to be pending before the first respondent. 4. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent has proceeded to lock and seal the premises and issued notice under Section 56(2A) of Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. Petitioner reserves his right to challenge the notice locking and sealing the premises by way of separate writ petition stating that it is arbitrary and contrary to law. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to the authority to dispose of the appeal said to be pending before the first respondent. 5. The petitioner's plea is that in cases of this nature the authorities are well within their power to condone minimal and marginal increase in height of the building which is attributed to the increase in the height of the car park area. The petitioner's plea that the violation alleged in this case is distinctly different from major building violations, like excess floor space, additional floor contrary to building permission. The appellate authority is bound to consider the factual and legal plea on merits for grant of planning permission if the claim is as per the provision of law and without discrimination. 6. In view of the nature of grievance submitted by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner and the fact that the appeal has already been filed and pending before the first respondent, while giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the consequential notice issued under Section 56(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal on merits considering the legal and factual plea taken. The appeal to be disposed of within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be heard in either in person or through an authorised representative as requested before this Court. 7. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts To 1.The Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Member-Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai-600 008. +1cc to Mr.N.Anand Venkatesh, Advocate Sr 30041 RJ(CO) km/2.5. W.P.No.11770 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/