Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI & M. VENUGOPAL, JJ.
K. Anbanathan rep. by his Power Agent, Santha – Appellant
Versus
Puducherry Planning Authority, rep. by his Member Secretary & Others – Respondent
W.P. Nos. 9999 & 10000 of 2015 & M.P. Nos. 1, 1, 2, 3 & 4 of 2015
Decided On : 30-04-2015
For the Petitioner:T.V. Ramanujam Senior Counsel for C. Jagadish, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R3, T. Murugesan, Government Pleader Asst. by N. Mala, Addl. Government Pleader (Puducherry), R4 to R6, D. Senthil Kumar, Advocate.
Headnote:
Unsafe Buildings - Building Demolition - Puducherry Building Bye-Laws and Zoning Regulations, 2012, Puducherry Town and Country Planning Act, 1960 - 22, 23, 44, 45, 46 - The court directed the Petitioners to prefer an Appeal before the Competent Authority assailing the impugned Proceeding dated 01.04.2015 and other connected proceedings together with an Application for interim relief, within a period of two weeks from today. Till such time, the Status quo as on today shall be maintained by both parties. If such an Appeal and Stay Petition are filed by the Petitioners, within the time determined by this Court, the concerned authority is directed to dispose of the same within a period of four weeks, of course after adhering to the Principles of Natural Justice by providing reasonable opportunities to the Petitioners and also granting personal hearing to them if they so desire. It is needless for this Court to make a significant mention that the concerned authority is expected to pass a speaking order in a Just, Fair, Objective and dispassionate manner by outlining a process of reasoning in a quantitative and qualitative manner. Before parting with the case, this Court makes it abundantly clear that it is open to the Expert Committee to make an another inspection of the building in question and to submit a Report before the appropriate/concerned Authority (with a copy being marked to the Petitioners) to satisfy itself as to whether the demolition carried out by the Petitioners so far is not sufficient and still poses a potential threat to human life. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petitions are disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners sought to quash the impugned proceedings of the 1st Respondent dated 01.04.2015, which directed the demolition of a building due to structural concerns. The Petitioners argued that the building was safe and that the impugned order was contrary to law and violative of the Principles of Natural Justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the Petitioners to appeal the impugned proceedings and seek interim relief within two weeks. The court also ordered the concerned authority to dispose of the appeal within four weeks, ensuring adherence to the Principles of Natural Justice. The Expert Committee was also directed to conduct another inspection of the building to assess the sufficiency of the demolition carried out by the Petitioners.
Issues: The main issue was the safety of the building and the validity of the impugned proceedings issued by the 1st Respondent. The court also addressed the need for an appeal and interim relief, as well as the sufficiency of the demolition carried out by the Petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the Petitioners to pursue an appeal and seek interim relief within the specified timeline. It also highlighted the importance of adherence to the Principles of Natural Justice in the disposal of the appeal. Additionally, the court stressed the need for the Expert Committee to conduct another inspection to assess the sufficiency of the demolition carried out by the Petitioners.
Final Decision: The Writ Petitions were disposed of, with the direction for the Petitioners to appeal the impugned proceedings and seek interim relief within two weeks. The concerned authority was ordered to dispose of the appeal within four weeks, ensuring adherence to the Principles of Natural Justice. The Expert Committee was also directed to conduct another inspection of the building to assess the sufficiency of the demolition carried out by the Petitioners.
M. Venugopal, J.
1. The Petitioners have preferred the instant Writ Petitions before this Court seeking to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 1st Respondent dated 01.04.2015 in No.949/PPA/Z(SB-2)/2015 and to quash the same.
2. The Summation of Writ Facts:
(i) The Petitioners had obtained the Planning Permission from the 1st Respondent/Puducherry Planning Authority vide No.PPA/421/ 949/Z(SB)/2) 2013-14, on 03.04.2015 in regard to the construction of five storied residential flat building at Plot Nos.6, 7 and 8 (Part), Thillaikannu Amma Street, Palani Udayar Nagar Extension, Saram Revenue Village, Oulgaret Municipality, Puducherry. According to them, they had constructed the building in terms of the approved plan and the same is nearing completion.
(ii) On 01.04.2015 at 2.30 p.m. when a lorry unloading the blue metal (Jally) in the site came into contact with one of the Pillars of the building and the plastering in the column was peeled off. However, the column and the steel reinforcement in the column are intact. But only the plastering alone was peeled off. Immediately, an individual occupying the adjacent house working in a Tamil Daily Newspaper 'Dinamalar' appears to have informed to Press and that the 2nd Respondent/District Collector, Puducherry and the Deputy Collector, Puducherry came for inspection of the building and they called upon the workers to stop the work.
(iii) It is the stand of the Petitioners that they are more concerned with the safety of the building and the neighbours and that they immediately called upon the Experts TDBD Engineering Works Private Limited from Pune, who had inspected the building. In fact, the Expert from Pune explained to the 2nd Respondent/District Collector, Puducherry and the Deputy Collector of Puducherry and Superintending Engineer of the 1st Respondent/Puducherry Planning Authority that the building is safe. Further, the authorities had permitted the Experts to take transitory measures by providing 9 dummy columns along with jockeys for the safety of the building and also the neighbours and this was done purely by way of abundant caution. Even otherwise the building is very safe and there is no danger. Also that, the officials of the 1st Respondent/Puducherry Planning Authority were informed that steps were taken to repair the building to make it more safe.
(iv) As a matter of fact, the owners are ready and willing to take any steps to ensure the structural stability of the building. That apart, the Petitioners are ready and willing to indemnify because they are sure that there is no danger to the building. The building is not unsafe and it does not cause any danger to public safety.
3. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the impugned order dated 01.04.2015 issued by the 1st Respondent/Puducherry Planning Authority is contrary to law and violative of the Principles of Natural Justice.
4. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the impugned order of the 1st Respondent mentions that there is deviation and it does not assign any particulars of so-called deviation.
5. Moreover, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners takes a plea that the impugned order dated 01.04.2015 was issued under Puducherry Bye-Laws and Zoning Regulations, 2012 and the same has to be read as a whole. Apart from that, the Petitioners have obtained sanction and they had put up the construction as per sanctioned plan. In reality, there is no imminent danger to the building and that the building is safe.
6. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners projects an argument that before issuing any notice under Regulation 22(3) of the Puducherry Building Bye Laws and Zoning Regulations, 2012 there should have been an inspection and there should have been a finding of structural soundness of the building by the Expert and there ought to have been a finding whether repair alone was sufficient or demolition of the entire building is requi
