The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to address unauthorized construction and deviation from approved plans under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

JUDGMENT

V.M. Velumani, J.

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 3rd respondent to comply the order dated 12.07.2017 made in Na.Ka.No.1454/2017/SM-3 passed by the 2nd respondent based on the petitioner representation dated 15.05.2017.)

1. The petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition for a direction to the 3rd respondent to comply the order dated 12.07.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent based on the petitioner''s representation dated 15.05.2017.

2. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent has obtained permission for construction of non-residential building in ground & first floors measuring each 654 sq.ft. Contrary to the said approved plan, the 4th respondent constructed in total violation of the approved plan up to four floors. The petitioner made a representation dated 15.05.2017 to the respondents 1 to 3 to take action against the 4th respondent for unauthorised construction. The 2nd respondent by the proceedings dated 12.07.2017 directed the 3rd respondent to take action to inspect the property of the 4th respondent and if there is any unauthorised construction, directed to take necessary action against the 4th respondent. As per the order of the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent inspected the premises and issued notice under Sections 56 & 57 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 dated 20.07.2017 for locking & sealing of the unauthorised construction put up by the 4th respondent. Subsequently, the respondents 2 & 3 did not take further proceedings and hence, the petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition.

3. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit in May 2018 and submitted that 4th respondent obtained permission for construction of double storey commercial building in T.S.No.9, Block No.25, Ward D of Attur Municipality for construction of 654 sq.ft. each in ground & first floors in the plot measuring 1551 sq.ft. The 4th respondent in deviation of the approved plan, constructed 1452 sq.ft. in the ground floor and 1551 sq.ft. in the first floor. The 4th respondent also constructed second, third & fourth floors measuring to the extent of 1551 sq.ft., 1551 sq.ft. and 676 sq.ft. respectively without any approval and without providing any side setbacks and parking as per the Development Control Rules (DCR). On receiving complaint from the petitioner, the 2nd respondent directed the 3rd respondent to take action, both the respondents 2 & 3 have taken joint action and locked & sealed the premises of the 4th respondent.

4. The 2nd respondent also filed status report in January 2019 and stated that the 4th respondent has filed two applications through online for regularisation. The said applications were returned for want of details of documents such as plans, stability certificates, fire NOC etc. as per the check list.

5. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit and submitted that this Court by the order dated 13.02.2018 directed the 2nd respondent to lock & seal the second, third & fourth floors of the premises and directed the Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to disconnect the electricity service connection to the second, third & fourth floors. As per the order of this Court, the 2nd respondent issued notice dated 05.03.2018 to the 4th respondent intimating the locking & sealing of the second, third & fourth floors and notice was affixed in the petition premises. The 4th respondent removed all the goods on 05.03.2018. The 3rd respondent also locked & sealed the second, third & fourth floors on 06.03.2018.

6. The 4th respondent filed W.M.P.No.10021 of 2018 for a direction to the respondents 2 & 3 to de-seal the premises and direct the Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, to give electricity service connection to her premises pending disposal of the application for regularisation. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that the 4th respo