1. In W.P. Nos. 1664/2013 and 16787/2013, the respective writ petitioners made a challenge to G.O. Ms. No. 234, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(1)] Department dated 30.10.2012 by and under which, Section 113-C was inserted in the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 [in short ‘TCP Act’]

2. In W.P. No. 16785/2013, challenge is made to G.O. Ms. No. 235 dated 30.10.2012 by and under which, the rules framed for assessment and collection of amount for Exemption of Buildings Rules, 2012, made in exercise of powers conferred by clause (bb) of sub-section (2) of section 122 read with section 113-C of TCP Act as ultra vires of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. In W.P. No. 16786/2013, challenge is made to Section 113-C of the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 2012 in so far as it applies to unauthorized constructions after 28.02.1999, as ultra vires of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. The present writ petitions are having a long and checkered history and the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 16785 to 16787/2013, namely, Citizen, Consumer and Civic Action Group, Adyar, Chennai, repeatedly made challenge to various amendments to the TCP Act with regard to regularization of unauthorized constructions, extension of time limit for regularization of such unauthorized constructions and though they succeed in their endeavour, still the problem of unauthorized construction and unregulated development is not over and the second respondent/Government, while passing G.O.Ms. No. 235 dated 30.10.2012 once again thought it fit to introduce/insert Section 113-C in the TCP Act, extending the cut off date for regularization of unauthorized developments made prior to 01.07.2007 and certain consequential amendments to Sections 57, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88 and 89 and therefore, challenge is made in these writ petitions.

5. The petitioner in W.P. No. 1664/2013, namely Thiru. K.R. Ramaswamy alias Traffic Ramaswamy claims that he is the Founder Chairman of Tamil Nadu Social Workers Organization and the said organization is rendering free service to the citizens of the country mainly in Tamil Nadu by way of protecting their valuable rights enshrined in the Constitution of India, other laws, rules and regulations of the Central and State Governments and he was instrumental in banning Motorized Fish Cart vehicles and he also expoused the cause of the public by filing various Public Interest Litigations and based on the orders passed by this Court, certain remedial actions were also taken. It is contended by the writ petitioner that unauthorized constructions are rampant in the City of Chennai and the concerned authorities, namely, Corporation of Chennai and Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) have failed to take proper and effective steps to halt such unauthorized developments and no follow up action was taken and though it has been found that most of the buildings found constructed in violation of Floor Space Index (FSI), encroachment of Public streets and in some cases, without any planning permission also, the Government, who is having administrative control over the said authorities, instead of controlling them, is actually aiding and abetting the violators by granting exemption and on various occasions, has chosen to give cut off dates for regularizing such unauthorized constructions and the present amendment in the form of Section 113-C is in the nature of helping and aiding the violators, who with absolute impunity has chosen to violate and continue to violate almost all the provisions of the TCP Act and Development Control Rules.

6. It is further stated by the petitioner in W.P. No. 1664/2013 that the Ordinance No. 6 of 2012 further amending the TCP Act, 1971, namely, amending Sections 57, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88 and 89 and insertion of Section 113-C is in gross violation of the orders passed by this Court in Consumer Action Group v. The State of Tamil Nadu [2006 (4) CTC 483] and the said decision