JUDGMENT :

T.RAJA, J.

These two writ appeals are directed against the impugned common order dated 20.09.2012 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.27465 & 29485 of 2008.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-M/s Keyaram Hotels Private Limited submitted that the appellant applied for planning permission to develop the property situated at Door No.1, Harrington Road, Chennai. After processing the same, the respondent-Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (for short, the CMDA) has granted the planning permission with a direction to pay a sum of Rs.33,00,000/- vide their letter of demand No.C3/22322/99 dated 22.2.99, after the Government have issued the Government Order granting planning permission for the development. The appellant challenged the said demand in Writ Petition Nos.3104 & 4421 of 1999, but the Court directed the appellant to pay the amount by way of bank guarantee. Accordingly, the bank guarantee was initially given for a period of 5 years and the guarantee shall be enforceable by CMDA on demand at any time before the expiry of the period specified therein. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant also submitted that the Development Control Rules clearly prescribes that the security deposit amount is refundable on completion of the building and after issuance of the completion certificate. Therefore, when the building was completed and the CMDA had inspected the premises, they had also issued the completion certificate on 20.9.2002 by letter No.ECI/31008/2002. Since the building has been completed in accordance with law, on the basis of the issuance of the completion certificate, the security deposit shall be refunded as per the approved plan as certified by CMDA. When the CMDA had issued the completion certificate after inspection of the building, the appellant is entitled to get the security deposit. But curiously, the CMDA issued a show cause notice dated 13.10.2003 calling upon the appellant to explain as to why the bank guarantee should not be invoked stating as if the appellant had violated the Development Control Rules in the construction. This show cause notice was issued after the appellant insisted for return of the bank guarantee. However, the appellant, after receiving the show cause notice, explained through the letter dated 10.11.2003 that the show cause notice is wrong, because there is no deviation and the same was also received by the CMDA on 12.11.2003. Once again the appellant has given another reply on 29.11.2003. Thereafter, the CMDA has sent another letter on 30.1.2004 directing the appellant to apply for a revised plan, for which the appellant also replied on 5.3.2004. But once again the CMDA has sent another letter on 15.4.2004 contrary to their earlier letter. Since the CMDA has insisted to file a revised plan as per the site condition, though there is no violation of DCR norms, the appellant applied for revised planning permission and submitted the essential drawings on 14.2.2004. Subsequently, the CMDA also sent letters dated 28.6.2004 to various authorities of the Multi-storeyed Building (MSB) panel calling for their remarks. Accordingly, the various authorities of the MSB panel also issued their No Objection Certificate for the proposed conversion of the existing building and thereafter the CMDA issued the impugned letter stating that the revised planning permission is refused.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that when the police authorities have given clearance by way of NOC stating that the appellant has provided 20% extra space for car parking and visitors parking including two wheelers as against the required parking requirement, by letter dated 3.9.2004, the claim of the CMDA that the appellant has not provided enough parking is wrong. Arguing further, the learned counsel contended that when the CMDA has issued the