- (1.) Feeling aggrieved by the proceedings in G.O.(3D)No.27, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 19th January, 2016, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
(2.) The first respondent, considering the appeal of the petitioner filed under Section 113A(6) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (herein-after referred to as "Act, 1971"), against the rejection order dated 14th March, 2014 passed by the second respondent, Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, dismissed the same, holding as under : "7.The Government have examined the case along with the connected original records and remarks of Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. After careful consideration, the Government have decided to reject the appeal of M/s.Althaf Shoes under section 113(A)(6) of the Act for regularization of unauthorized construction of Machinery Hall B&C - Ground Floor + Mezzanine Floor and incidental structures such as workers Dining, Dining hall, Generator Room, Office Block, Maintenance Room, Security Room, Securities Office and Rest Room as EB Room of Industrial building in S.Nos.395/1, 396/1B, 3B, 3C and 5 of Palanjur Village, Chennai as the entire building was not completed prior to 28.02.1999, without prejudice to his right to apply under section 113(C) once the rules are notified. 8.The orders issued in para 7 above are final and no further appeal shall lie with the Government and the Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority is directed to pursue action accordingly."
(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that according to the inspection report dated 3rd June, 2002, only a small portion of the said superstructure, being 171.56 square metre situated in one of the five survey numbers, i.e., S.No.396/5 alone was constructed after 28th February, 1999. It is further contended that 77 workers are employed, whose families are totally dependent on the petitioner company for their livelihood. The petitioner Company is also generating foreign exchange. The subsequent developments have been completely ignored by the first respondent while considering the appeal. The first respondent ought to have exercised its power even in respect of the construction purported to be carried out after 28th February, 1999 and on or before 1st July, 2007. The completion which had taken place prior to 28th February, 1999 was completely ignored. It is further contended that several documents were produced, which were not examined by the first respondent while passing the order.;