JUDGMENT

DR. G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

and SUNDER MOHAN,J.

The appellant is the 8th respondent in the writ petition filed by Madurai Poriyalar Nagar, Residents Welfare Association, alleging that Plot Nos.70 & 71, which are earmarked for shopping complex are being misused by altering the character by putting up a Petrol bunk by him.

2.The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival submissions, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 25.05.2007 and the consequential proceedings, dated 16.06.2007, passed by the President, Kannanenthal Panchayat and remanded the matter back to the 5th respondent viz., the Member Secretary, Local Planning Authority, to pass a detailed speaking order, taking into account the issue as to whether the activity of the 8th respondent, who is the appellant herein, is in accordance with the sanctioned plan. The learned Single Judge has also made the observation that if the 8th respondent is running a shop to sell oil lubricants, then there will be hardly any objection by the writ petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the 8th respondent has preferred this appeal, stating that there is no apparent difference between the commercial complex and the shopping complex. As per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, wherever there is a sale or exchange of goods, the premises used for such purposes are to be classified as commercial complex and having earmarked Plot Nos.70 & 71 for commercial purposes, there cannot be any objections by any of the members of the writ petitioner Association.

3.It is contended that while permitting the vast extent of lands as residential plots, certain portion of the lands are earmarked for public purposes and public utility such as a Commercial Centre, Dispensary, Nursery School, Park etc., as long as the activity of the appellant, who has established his business premises in the plot meant for commercial activity, is not hazardous or endangers the nearby residents, the residents can have no locus to object the appellant's rights of trade and commerce.

4.The learned Single Judge, taking note of the averments made in the counter affidavit that the appellant is selling only oil lubricants by using the premises as a shop, has rightly observed that if the appellant is running a shop to sell the oil lubricants, there can be no objection from the first respondent/writ petitioner. Therefore, the learned Single Judge erred in observing further that the fifth respondent permitting the appellant to trade the oil lubricants without storing them and using the premises as a godown and the consequential resolution passed by the local authority set aside and to reconsider the application afresh. Hence, he prays for setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 29.07.2011.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner submitted that the appellant herein is using the premises as a godown storing oil lubricants and therefore, there is a clear violation of the order passed by the fifth respondent/the Member Secretary, Local Planning Authority. The learned counsel further submitted that without making proper application to the authorities, the appellant herein cannot continue the business.

6.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submitted that the appellant herein besides selling the oil lubricants stored stocks in the backyard of the shop. The photographs are also circulated for appreciation by this Court.

7.Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Official respondents.

8.This Court, on perusing the records and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, finds that the conditional order for carrying out oil lubricant oil business in the said premises was passed on 15.02.2005, by the fifth respondent