Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2516
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, K. RAJASEKAR, JJ.
D.P. Chandramathi – Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.No.9311 of 2024 and WMP. No.10329 of 2024
Decided On : 29-04-2025
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Writ Petition
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The scope of writ petitions does not extend to granting relief that contradicts statutory provisions or established regulations.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a writ to direct the authorities to allow three months for obtaining planning permission for a property after unauthorized constructions were flagged.
Findings of Court:
The court found the petition not actionable under writ jurisdiction, recommending that the petitioner pursue a remedy as per the Town and Country Planning Act.
Issues: The main issue was the entertainability of the writ petition in light of ongoing unauthorized construction and the process available under the Town and Country Planning Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the writ jurisdiction cannot override statutory provisions and the appropriate remedy for the petitioner lies in a statutory revision rather than a writ.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
For the Petitioner: Mr. K. Gajendiran.
For the Respondents: Mrs. E. Ranganayaki, Additional Government Pleader, Mr. RA. Gopinath, Standing Counsel.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's request for planning permission. (Para 1) |
| 2. writ petition not entertainable due to identified illegal construction. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
ORDER :
(S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The writ of mandamus has been instituted to direct the 4th respondent to give three months time for obtaining planning permission from the 1st respondent for the land and building situated at No.9, Jeevanandham 4th Street, Kumaran Nagar, Avadi, Chennai - 600 054.
2. The relief as such sought for in the present writ petition is not entertainable.
3. In the present case, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Avadi Municipality would submit that the unauthorised constructions / deviations are identified. Lock and Seal notice was issued.
4. Therefore, the petitioner may prefer a revision under Section 80 -A of the Town and Country Planning Act before the Government and the writ petition is not entertainable.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
