JUDGMENT

S. Vaidyanathan, R. Vijayakumar, JJ.

(Prayer in W.P.No.23866/2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the Respondents 2 to 4 in their proceedings Notice No.01/02170/2021 dated 19.04.2021 and Letter No.01/00094/2021 dated 22.06.2021 and quash the same.

Prayer in W.P.No.23870/2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the Respondents 2 to 4 in their proceedings Notice No.01/02164/2021 dated 19.04.2021, Lock and Seal and Demolition Notice in Letter No.01/01913/2021 dated 21.05.2021, Letter No.01/00091/2021 dated 22.06.2021 and Letter No.01/00093/2021 dated 22.06/2021 passed by the Respondents 2 to 4 respectively.)

The Petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions, seeking to quash the proceedings issued in Notice No.01/02170/2021 dated 19.04.2021 and Letter No.01/00094/2021 dated 22.06.2021 and Notice No.01/02164/2021 dated 19.04.2021, Lock and Seal and Demolition Notice in Letter No.01/01913/2021 dated 21.05.2021, Letter No.01/00091/2021 dated 22.06.2021 and Letter No.01/00093/2021 dated 22.06/2021 passed by the Respondents 2 to 4 respectively, in and by which, the Petitioners were asked to stop the ongoing works for want of approved plan and the consequential Lock and Seal Notice was also issued.

2. Mr.Raja Srinivas, learned counsel takes notice for the Respondents. Since the issue involved in these Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together for joint disposal at the admission stage itself, by consent of the learned counsel on either side.

3. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from W.P.No.23866 of 2021 on due mention of original nomenclatures described in the Writ Petition.

3.1. It was the case of the Petitioner that they are into the business of trading of Wooden and scrap Items for the last 17 years and they have also been paying all the applicable taxes without fail. The business is being run in the name of the company and its owner after obtaining due licence from the concerned Authority. It was further case of the Petitioner that while so, in the year 2005, the Petitioner made a temporary shed for business purposes and the same has not been converted into a permanent structure.

3.2. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner received a Notice dated 19.04.2021 from the Respondents for furnishing a copy of the approved plan and though the Petitioner appeared before the 2nd Respondent and explained the factual position in respect of the temporary shed put up by the Petitioner, the 2nd Respondent was not in a position to heed the explanation offered by the Petitioner. Subsequent thereto, the Respondents attempted to demolish the shed with a JCB machine on 29.10.2021 and their attempt was temporarily thwarted.

3.3. It was the grievance of the Petitioner that though the Petitioner has filed an application before the Government under Section 80(A)(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (in short 'the Act, 1971'), the Petitioner feels an allusion of threat in the form of Damocles sword, hanging on the top, as the Respondents informed that the structure would be demolished on the next inspection. Aggrieved by the action of the Respondents, the Petitioner is before this Court, seeking to quash the proceedings issued by R2 to R4.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that when there are buildings, situated in the very same locality in the same manner like that of the Petitioner, the action of the Respondents is nothing, but a motivated. The Respondents failed to note that a temporary shed alone has been put to run the business and there was no permanent structure laid down in the premises of the Petitioner and therefore, the question of obtaining an approved plan does not arise at all. He further submitted that when the Petitioner was in occupation of the premises for quite a number