Residents' welfare association lacks locus standi to challenge township constructions; only building-wise owners' associations have enforceable rights over amenities.

ORDER :

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner’s complaint vide representation dated 21.10.2025 against the third respondent and take appropriate action expeditiously and in accordance with Sections 56 and 57 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 by preventing such illegal construction affecting the circular access road being put up by the third respondent without any valid permission for the same.

2.1. The facts in a nutshell are as follows: The petitioner, claims to be a registered Residents Welfare Association constituted under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, comprising residents of the "House of Hiranandani" Township situated at Egattur, Chennai. It is alleged that though Phase II construction was nearing completion, the third respondent failed to construct the clubhouse earmarked for Phase II and instead commenced construction of two residential towers, namely Octavius and Verona, at the very location reserved for the Phase II clubhouse as per the approved plan. On knowing that the third respondent had obtained revised plan approval dated 19.11.2020 permitting construction of the said towers, the petitioner association challenged the revised approval before this court in W.P.No.3935 of 2023 . The said writ petition came to be dismissed by order dated 04.07.2023.

2.2. Assailing the said order, the petitioner association preferred W.A.No.3328 of 2023 before a Division Bench of this court, which was allowed by judgment dated 08.04.2024, quashing the approval dated 19.11.2020. The review petition filed by the third respondent was subsequently withdrawn. Thereafter, the third respondent approached the Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) No.29239 of 2024, wherein an order of status quo was granted on 02.12.2024. Thereafter, by order dated 23.04.2025, the Supreme Court directed the third respondent to complete and make available the clubhouse facilities to residents on or before 31.03.2026 and also permitted construction of two towers at the promoter's risk and categorically restrained the third respondent from seeking any further modification of the sanctioned plan.

2.3. It is alleged that when things stood thus, the third respondent began putting up unauthorised structures, believed to be pump and tank rooms, on the internal circular access road adjacent to Phase II, which do not find place either in the valid 2012 approved plan or in the quashed 2020 plan. According to the petitioner, the said construction obstructs free access and circulation within Phase II of the township.

2.4. The petitioner association sent a detailed representation dated 21.10.2025 to the first respondent requesting immediate action and removal of the unauthorised construction. The said representation did not evoke any response and, on the other hand, the third respondent is continuing the illegal construction

2.5. It is stated that, subsequently, the Supreme Court, by order dated 10.11.2025, observed that any construction undertaken by the third respondent would be subject to the final outcome of the pending SLP. It is alleged that the third respondent is misinterpreting the said order to justify unauthorised constructions which are contrary to the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

2.6. Hence, the present writ petition is filed for the relief stated supra.

3.1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner association submitted that the directive of the Supreme Court permitting the third respondent to put up any construction outside the scope of the SLP