Unauthorized construction cannot be regularized, and the authorities have a duty to prevent violations of building plans.

“In olden days, the profession of a Doctor was highly regarded as sacred/noble one and in the present era, People see the Private Doctors as notorious villains, joyfully existing in this country. The role of such villains in the society has become inevitable and they also grew like mushrooms, as Governments have pulled out their hands from their social responsibilities of providing free medical aid to its citizens, by poor budgetary allocations and it has lead to dismal state of Government hospitals. The private hospitals are meant only for rich people, who afford to pay more money and the more one values a good or service, the more he or she is willing to pay for it. With the amount looted from public, Private Hospitals construct sky touching buildings. The Private Hospitals, which lost its sacredness, cannot be furthermore termed as Hospitals, but are only corporate centres and share markets.”

The present case is a classic example and revolves around the illegality committed by the Hospital Authorities, who, though obtained a plan for constructing three floors, had constructed 9 floors unauthorizedly. Whether they constructed such floors with black money or white money or they have sufficient source for raising such floors, is for the Income Tax Department to ascertain actual position. Ultimately, the entire expenses incurred by them will fall on the head of innocent public, who approach them for medical emergency. There is a joke generally going on that on seeing the construction being carried on in a hospital, the patient, who visits the hospital frequently for some ailment, proudly said “I have indirectly contributed much for construction of this portion of the building by frequently visiting the hospital and paying several lakhs of rupees”. According to a French saying, when money speaks, the truth will be silent and the said saying is more aptly applicable to this case.

2. Mr. R. Govindasamy, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for R1 to R3. Mr.P.S.Ganesh, learned counsel takes notice for R4. Mr.G.Anantharangan, learned counsel takes notice for R5. Mr.K.V.Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel takes notice for R9. Notice to respondents 6 to 8 returnable in four weeks. Private notice is also permitted and the same has to be despatched within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

3. The petitioner has come forward, pointing out the illegal construction made by the 9th respondent. According to the petitioner, the building plan has been sanctioned for basement, ground + 3 floors, for which Electricity supply was accorded and lift licence was also granted upto the 3rd floor. The 9th respondent has also paid property tax upto the 3rd floor till the year 2008 and only in the year 2009, the enhanced property tax upto 8 floors have been paid. The very fact that the property tax has been paid in the year 2009 clearly shows that there was no building beyond 3rd floor upto 2009 and illegal constructions have been made thereafter to enable the 9th respondent to pay the property tax. It is further submitted that the petitioner has made a representation about the illegal construction and approached this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition in W.P No.4164 of 2019, in which, this Court had passed an order dated 12.03.2019, observing that the representation of the petitioner has already been disposed of and the relevant paragraphs 2 & 3 are extracted below:

“2. When the matter is taken up hearing, it is the grievance of the petitioner that his representation dated 11.01.2019 was not considered by the first respondent. However, the learned Government Pleader (i/c) submitted that the representation of the petitioner dated 11.01.2019 was considered by the first respondent and an order was also passed on 21.02.2019. The learned Government Pleader (i/c) also produced a copy of the order dated 21.02.2019. From the said order, it is clear that the first respondent has already considered the petitioner's representa