The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of preserving open spaces in residential areas for public interest and the need for authorities to exercise their power in public interest and not in violation of approved layout plan conditions.

V. Dhanapalan, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Rc.No.42326/98 L.A.1, dated 13.03.2001 on the file of first respondent, quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents 1 to 4 from in any way modifying, altering or changing or otherwise in any manner deleting the conditions of the layout permission under Plan No.59/85, for the Thai Nagar, Melapalayam, Tirunelveli.

2. The case of the petitioner is as under:

2. 1. He is the President of the society and the said society has been formed and registered in the interests and welfare of the owners of the plots and the residential houses put up in Thai Nagar, all under the approved layout under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act,1971 (in short, "the Act") and all the lands covered under above layout originally belonged to one R.Kumar and others. The fourth respondent herein has been granted with power of attorney by the said R.Kumar and others and she, as the power of attorney of the said land owners, divided all their lands into several plots and got them approved under the Act. The said plots under the above layout are sold by the fourth respondent to several persons under several sale deeds and, in all the sale deeds, permission for formation of the layout has been referred to. Further, the members of the petitioner society also purchased several plots in the above said layout, now called Thai Nagar, and, as such, the present Writ Petition is filed not only on behalf of the members of the petitioner association, but also as a public interest litigation, as the persons most aggrieved are not only the members of the petitioner association, but also the public of Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation, living in Thai Nagar.

2. 2. While that being so, it is proclaimed by the fourth respondent that she has been permitted to put up three godowns in the places earmarked as public open place. The reservation of the vacant land as an open land is only in conformity with the rules and regulations for formation of the layout and also with the approval by the Town Planning authorities and the said open land is vested only with the third respondent Corporation and open for public for their use and enjoyment. An enquiry made by the petitioner society revealed that the fourth respondent has made applications to the first respondent on 21.06.2000 and 13.02.2001 and on the basis of the said applications, the first respondent, by his order dated 13.03.2001, has granted permission to the fourth respondent to convert the portion of the public place into the place for construction of three godowns. On the basis of the order of exemption, dated 13.03.2001, the second respondent passed further orders permitting the conversions for construction of three godowns by the fourth respondent and the third respondent also granted the building permission on the basis of the exemption granted by the respondents 1 and 2.

2. 3. The society has made several complaints to the respondents 1 to 3, for which the society is given reply by the second respondent on 25.07.2001, informing about the order of exemption, dated 13.03.2001, by making an attempt to pacify the society that pubic interest would be taken note of by the second respondent at the time when the fourth respondent makes a proper application for building permission for construction of three godowns, but the second respondent has given permission to the fourth respondent for construction of three godowns without taking into consideration the public interest. The fact that the second respondent has given permission under Plan No.50/2001 makes it abundantly clear that the respondents 1 and 2 are abusing their powers of exemption for the self interest of the fourth respondent to convert a public place into a private one and such permission granted by the respondents 1 and 2 in favour of the fourth respondent i