A mandamus issued by the court creates vested rights that restrict the imposition of additional charges for planning permission if initial conditions were met according to earlier mandates.

ORDER :

1. The property situated at Nos.554 & 555, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 018, originally belonged to one A.K. Khader Kutty. He passed away on 14.02.2001. On his death, the petitioners 1 to 6 inherited the same. A portion of the property bearing the aforesaid door numbers was owned by the 7^th petitioner. All of them applied on 11.01.1996 for construction of an office complex consisting of a basement and 11 floors. The application was made to Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “CMDA”). The proposal was not approved by the CMDA. Hence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the State of Tamil Nadu on 23.01.1997. The State did not pass any orders on the said appeal. Hence, a writ petition was moved in W.P.No.2358 of 1998, seeking a mandamus to dispose of the appeal. This Court by an order dated 19.02.1998, directed the State to dispose of the appeal within a period of three months.

2. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.413, on 06.11.1998, exempting the building from the plot restrictions covered by the Development Control Rules. It also permitted the provision of a car parking space. The 1^st respondent directed the petitioners to furnish a Bank Guarantee at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq.ft for the stilt car parking space. The 1^st respondent also directed the 2^nd respondent to issue the planning permission on the basis of the order, after notifying the same in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette.

3. After receipt of the order from the Government, the petitioners submitted their documents to the 2, nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent called upon the petitioners to pay the following charges:-

4. Apart from these amounts, the 2 respondent directed the petitioner to furnish a Bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.18,12,000/- as a security deposit for the stilt car parking. The petitioners were aggrieved by the said direction. Hence, they filed W.P.No.18154 of 1999, seeking for a certiorarified mandamus for quashing the order demanding a Bank guarantee of Rs.300/- per sq.ft for the proposed car parking and for a mandamus to grant planning permission. This Court heard both the parties and passed the following order:-

“10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has also submitted that even though the petitioners have indicated that they would be using the first floor for car parking, subsequently after completion of the building, the petitioners might convert it for any profitable use and for the aforesaid purpose the bank guarantee should be furnished by the petitioners. Such apprehension is misplaced and the submission is unjustified. Apart from the fact that the security deposit made by the petitioners can be forfeited, it would be always open to CMDA, the respondent No.2, to take appropriate action against the petitioners if there is violation of any building regulation or sanctioned plan. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are prepared to file an undertaking in the shape of affidavit in this Court undertaking that the first floor shall be used as car parking and at any point of time it would be used for any other purpose. The aforesaid affidavit may be filed within a period of one week from today.

11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the portion of the order passed by the Government calling upon the petitione