The main legal point established is that when a statute provides for adequate and sufficient remedies, without exhausting the remedies available under the statute, a civil suit is not maintainable.

1. This Second Appeal arises out of the Judgment in A.S.No.170/1995 reversing the findings of the trial court in O.S. No.6719/1991 and thereby dismissing the Plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction.

2. Appellant/Plaintiff has applied for approval of construction plan to the 1st Defendant – Commissioner, Corporation of Madras. Corporation has sanctioned permission for construction of Appellants premises bearing Door No.60, Choolai High Road, Chennai 7.

3. The case of the Plaintiff is that appropriate planning authority is the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras. While so, the 2nd Defendant has served a notice to the Appellant in the year 1991 dated as 112. 1987 under Sec.56 of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (Tamil Nadu Act 35/1972) (for short Act) to demolish the alleged deviated construction. It is the further case of the Plaintiff that when the construction plan was sanctioned by the Corporation of Madras under City Municipal Corporation Act, 2nd Defendant does not have any jurisdiction to issue notice under the Act. Alleging that the Plaintiff was not served with any notice, Plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from in any manner enforcing the notice issued under Sec.56 of the Act.

4. 2nd Defendant-Madras Metropolitan Development Authority (for short MMDA) had opposed the suit contending that in view of express bar provided under Sec.101 of the Act, suit is not maintainable. It was further alleged that no injunction could be granted against the statutory body restraining the statutory body from exercising its statutory functions. Plaintiff has obtained planning permission for the ground floor plus first floor from the 1st Defendant, whereas Plaintiff has constructed II and III floors which are totally unauthorized and therefore, MMDA was justified in issuing the impugned notice.

5. On the above pleadings, relevant issues were framed. Trial court reached the conclusion that there was no proof showing that notice had been sent through messenger. Trial court further held that notice had been sent nearly four years after the construction of the building was completed and on those findings decreed the suit granting permanent injunction as prayed for.

6. Aggrieved, 2nd Defendant-MMDA has preferred appeal in A.S.No.170/1995. Referring to Sec.101 of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, lower Appellate court held that in view of express bar under the Act, civil suit is not maintainable. The learned Appellate Judge observed that the impugned notice / order is to be challenged only before the competent forum provided under the statute and Plaintiff cannot maintain a civil suit.

7. Challenging the Judgment of the lower Appellate court, Plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal. At the time of admission the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration:

1) Whether section 56 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act could be invoked after the period of three years and the bar enunciated for such power as laid down in 1994(I) L.W. 59?

2) whether the provisions of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act could be invoked when the sanction was accorded under the provisions of Madras City Municipal Corporation Act and would it amount to usurping jurisdiction as laid down in AIR 1989 SC 830?

8. Ms. P. Kalpa Reddy, the learned counsel for the Appellant contended that only Corporation is the appropriate planning authority who can inspect and can direct the land owner to bring the construction in conformity with the sanctioned plan and the 2nd Defendant – MMDA does not have any jurisdiction to issue notice under the Act. The learned counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff further contended that no notice has been served upon the Plaintiff and when there was violation of principles of natural justice, civil suit is well maintainable.

9. Reiterating the findings of the lower Appellate court, Mr. C. Kathiravan, the learned counse