K KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. SECRETARY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (U D V ) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU,; COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF CHENNAI AND THE MEMBER, SECRETARY CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the proceedings of the first respondent dated 01.04.2004 made in G.O.(D) No. 151 Housing and Urban Development (UD5) Department, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various grounds.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he is a promoter and joined with one Krishnammal, he constructed a dwelling unit in Old Door No. 11, Krishnapuram Street, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. He originally applied for planning permission on 30.01.1989 to put up construction of residential building consisting of ground plus two floors and the third respondent granted planning permission on 17.05.1989, and he successfully completed the construction. Thereafter, he applied for permission for the construction of third floor of a limited extent, to the second respondent on 23.03.1990 and he was under the bona fide impression that his request for additional construction of third floor had been fully approved by the authority concerned, in view of the fact that he did not receive any order rejecting his request. However, the third respondent by proceedings dated 18.07.1990, rejected the planning permission application after four months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent on 30.08.1990 bringing to the notice of the appellate authority the necessary permission given to several constructions in the same street and particularly in respect of adjacent properties. The first respondent without considering his objections and grounds raised, dismissed the appeal on 31.01.1996. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 6130 of 1996. By order dated 29.08.1998, holding that the violations pointed out by the third respondent are negligible, this Court allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to the first respondent for fresh disposal according to law. Thereafter, the first respondent dismissed the petitioner's appeal. In such circumstances, having no other remedy, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents.