Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Mad) 237

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M.M. Sundresh, S. Ananthi, JJ.
S.A. Joy Raja – Petitioner
Versus
Asha Ajith, The Commissioner, Nagercoil Municipal Corporation, Kanyakumari & Others – Respondents
Cont. P(MD) No. 837 of 2020 & Sub A(MD) No. 120 of 2020 & W.P.(MD)Nos. 6232 of 2020, 20488, 16918 of 2019
Decided On : 08-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Isaac Mohanlal, Senior Counsel, D. Sadiq Raja, Advocate.
For the Respondent:P. Athimoolapandian, Advocate, VR. Shanmuganathan, J. Padmavathi Devi, Special Government Pleaders.

Interpretation of court orders and the right to appeal under the Town and Country Planning Act.

Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Town and Country Planning Act - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 11 - W.P.(MD) No.6232/2020, W.P.(MD) No.20488/2019, W.P.(MD) No.16918/2019 - Section 56, 57, 85 of the Town and Country Planning Act, Act 2 of 1988 - The court disposed of multiple petitions challenging various notices and orders under the Town and Country Planning Act and the cancellation of a license. The court interpreted the interim order to allow the petitioner to continue operating the building until an appeal is filed and appropriate orders are obtained from the appellate authority.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed multiple writ petitions challenging notices and orders under the Town and Country Planning Act and the cancellation of a license. A contempt petition was also filed alleging disobedience of a court order.
Finding of the Court:

The court disposed of the petitions by allowing the petitioner to file appeals against the impugned orders and interpreting the interim order to permit the petitioner to continue operating the building until obtaining appropriate orders from the appellate authority. The contempt petition was closed as the court found no willful disobedience.
Issues: Challenges to notices and orders under the Town and Country Planning Act, cancellation of a license, and alleged disobedience of a court order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the interim order to allow the petitioner to continue operating the building until an appeal is filed and appropriate orders are obtained from the appellate authority. The court found no willful disobedience in the alleged contempt.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner to file appeals against the impugned orders and interpreted the interim order to permit the petitioner to continue operating the building until obtaining appropriate orders from the appellate authority. The contempt petition was closed.

ORDER :

M.M. Sundresh, J.

(Prayer: Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent herein for his willful disobedience of the order made in W.M.P.(MD) No.5443 of 2020 in W.P. (MD) No.6232 of 2020 dated 20.05.2020 on the file of this Court.

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Form I notice made in Na.Ka.No. 1823/2019/F1 dated 04.03.2020 as well as the consequential impugned Form II notice made in Na.Ka.No.1823/2019/F1 dated 17.03.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same.

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order made in Roc.No.C2/34817/2011 dated 21.08.2019 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to issue 'C' Form license in favour of the petitioner for running Chakravarthy and Sri Mini Chakravarthy theatres comprised in T.S.No.N5/64 part, 65,66,67,68 and 69 part, situated at Rajamangalam Road, Chettikulam Junction, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District within the time stipulated by this Court.

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned notice made in Na.Ka.No.3440/2019/F1 dated 07.05.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same.)

1. W.P.(MD) No.6232/2020 has been filed challenging the impugned notice issued under Section 56, 57 and 85 of the Town and Country Planning Act.

2. W.P.(MD) No.20488/2019 has been filed challenging the cancellation of C Form License.

3. W.P.(MD) No.16918/2019 has been filed challenging the order passed under Act 2 of 1988.

4. The contempt petition has been filed for the alleged disobedience of the order passed in W.M.P(MD) No.5443/2020 in W.P.(MD) No. 6323/2020 dated 20.05.2020.

5. As all these matters pertaining to the same petitioner and respondents, they have been taken up and disposed of by common order. Though there are other respondents, in view of the commonality in the issues also, we are inclined to pass common order.

6. The impugned orders admittedly are appealable in nature, though before different appellate authorities.

7. The petitioner has been running a Multiplex complex. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that only after the onset of Pandemic, the building has been closed and therefore, hitherto the activities were going on.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent Municipality submitted that there is no contempt as such, particularly when the violation is at the hands of the petitioner by putting up additional construction. The order has to be interpreted to mean that status quo is only with respect to the construction alone and not for running. In the case on hand, the petitioner has violated the Town and Country Planning Act by putting up construction unauthorizedly and without obtaining permission.

9. We are not inclined to go into the merits of the case in all these three writ petitions.

10. W.P.(MD) No.6232/2020 has been filed against the action taken by the respondent Municipality for the violation committed against the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. An appeal would lie before the Government under Section 10A of the said Act. Similarly, as against the cancellation of the license, an appeal would lie. However, insofar as the action taken rejecting the permission on the application of the petitioner dated 06.05.2020 is concerned, it is the very same Commissioner, who is entitled to consider.

11. The Contempt Petition has been filed inter alia alleging that the order of status quo has not been complied with. While the petitioner is not entitled for putting up construction, the order of status quo would only mean that he is entitled to continue the operation.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document