Disposal of appeal by competent authority.

Mishra, J.:

This appeal has been listed after notice of motion. Since we intend to with the judgment of the learned single Judge as well as with the impugned order to be that of the prescribed authority under Sec.79(1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Planning Act, 1971 on the question whether the latter order is one by a competent or vitiated on ac-count of sub-delegation of the statutory power to a so-called Committee, we think it is not necessary to wait for any counter affidavit or to discuss other contention raised before us by learned counsel for the parties.

2. It appears for the alleged violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Planning Act, 1971, and rules and regulations framed thereunder in deviating and construction of and in a building from the approved plan, etc., a proceeding was against the petitioners-appellants under the Act. The petitioners-appellants meanwhile applied for a planning permission before the competent authority under and when the permission was not granted, appealed under Sec.79 of the Act before prescribed authority. The impugned order dated 29.5.1991 in G.O.Rt.No.288, Housing Urban Development Department, however shows that the competent authority in Housing and Urban Development Department disposed of the appeal in the light of certain recommendations of a certain Appeal Committee. The order reads: "The appeal has been examined under Sec.79 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971; based on the remarks of the Member-Secretary, Madras Metropolitan Development authority in his letters second and fourth made by the appellant in reference third read above and placed before the Appeal Committee meeting held 26.4.91 for its recommendation on the appeal portion.

2. The Appeal Committee considered the appeal petition carefully and found that appellant’s proposal violates the following development control rules:

1. 9(d)(i) floor space index 2.00 2.23 Excess by 0.23. 2. O-b I (ii) 3(i) front set back 3.50 m. 0.18 m. less by 3.32 m. 3. 19-b (ii) 3(ii)(1) side set back 4.50 m. 1.29 m. less by 3.21 m. 0.83m. less by 3.67 m. 4. 19-b -I(ii) 3(iii) Rear set back 3.00 m. Nil. Less by 3.00 m. due to main columns in rear boundary. 5. 20 parkings cars 4 Nos. Nil. Less by 4 Nos. Office area exceeds the permissible limit 9.40 Sq.m. Plan does not reflect the site condition.

------

3. Though in approved plan, the appellants have given sufficient set backs, during construction they have completely deviated from the original approved plan. There is large scale violation of front set back, floors space index and parking space. In view of the above facts, appeal committee recommended for rejection of the appeal." Concluding on the said basis, the impugned order said that the Government accepted recommendation of the Appeal Committee and accordingly rejected the appeal preferred the petitioners. The petitioners appellants herein then moved this Court in W.P.No.8838 1991 questioning the validity of the said order on various grounds.

4. The learned single Judge of this Court, however, has dismissed the writ petition that the petitioners-appellants attempted to get the new construction regularised by application before the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, which was rejected, they preferred an appeal, but the appeal was rejected by the State Government reasons stated therein. The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that natural justice were violated because a personal hearing was not given to them, was found to be devoid of merits, because Sec.79 of the Act never contemplated a hearing.

5. The learned single Judge, however, rejected the contention that no Appeal Committee had been contemplated under Sec.79 of the Act, saying that it is not as if the Government cannot appoint an Appeal Committee to assist it in the matter of deciding whether deviated constructions could be regularised or not, and that the Government is. At arrange its affairs so as to facilitate easy