JUDGMENT :

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the Order in Na. Ka. No. 5025/2021/F1, dated 27.09.2021 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to renew the building permission granted in proceedings Ref. No. 157/2000/G1, dated 29.09.2000 for constructing the building for commercial use in T.S. No. 20/12, Block No. 8, Ward No. 7, Bye Pass Road, Dharapuram, Erode District.

1. The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the Order in Na. Ka. No. 5025/2021/F1, dated 27.09.2021 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to renew the building permission granted in proceedings Ref. No. 157/2000/G1, dated 29.09.2000 for constructing the building for commercial use in T.S. No. 20/12, Block No. 8, Ward No. 7, Bye Pass Road, Dharapuram, Erode District.

2. The petitioner's father, one Natarajan was the owner of the land in T.S. No. 20/12, Block No. 8, Ward No. 7, Bye Pass Road, Dharapuram, Erode District, in short “the premises.” It was already classified under commercial zone category as per the development plan of Dharapuram Municipality.

3. The petitioner's father had applied and obtained planning permission from the respondent to construct a commercial building in the said premises on 29.09.2000, which was valid for three years. Since within the three years period, the petitioner did not commence the construction, on expiry of three years, on application further made, the petitioner's permission was renewed further or extended further period of three years up to 28.09.2006.

4. Due to various reasons, the petitioner's father thereafter could not undertake the construction within the extended time also, then the petitioner's father settled the said premises, i.e. the property in question to his son, that is the petitioner and the grand children by the registered settlement deed, dated 22.11.2018.

5. Thereafter the petitioner submitted a request to the respondent for renewal of the building permission, vide his request dated 08.09.2021. The same has been refused to consider by the respondent, which culminated in the impugned communication, dated 27.09.2021, where the respondent has stated that, if at all the petitioner wants to get any building permission from the respondent/municipality, he has to make the said application in the website through the UTIS-software, then only it can be considered. Felt aggrieved over the said stand taken by the respondent municipality in compelling the petitioner to make an application through the UTIS software, which is otherwise called as new application through a cumbersome procedure of course through the website of the respondent, he has filed the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.

6. Heard Mr. V.B.R. Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who would submit that, though the building permission was given initially in the year 2000 and subsequently extended or renewed in the year 2003, at the request of the father of the petitioner, subsequently, the father of the petitioner could not initiate or complete the construction, thereafter, the property itself was settled in favour of the petitioner, therefore the petitioner now wanted to renew the said building permission and accordingly, when he made an application, the same should have been considered and the renewal should have been given after collecting the necessary fee prescribed in this regard, instead the respondent municipality had rejected the same, saying that the petitioner shall make a new application, as if that he is a new applicant through a cumbersome process called UTIS-software and therefore that kind of process cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner, because it is only a renewal application.

7. In support of his contention, the learned cou