NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10002 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 34892/2013]

THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF MADURAI APPELLANT(S)                                 VERSUS

DR. I. ISMAIL AND ORS RESPONDENT(S) WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.441/2014 IN C.A. NO.10002/2017 @ SLP(C) No.34892/2013

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.

Leave granted. 2. The  Commissioner,  Corporation  of  Madurai  is before this Court, aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court.  The issue pertains to the steps taken by the  Commissioner  by  proceeding  against  respondent No.1 for the alleged construction in violation of the Rules.  The stand taken by Respondent No.1 is that the construction is as per the permission granted by the  Standing  Committee  for  Town  Planning  and Development Corporation of Madurai. 3. It is pointed out by Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned

1

senior counsel appearing for the appellant, under the Rules,  Standing  Committee  is  only  the  Appellate Authority  in  respect  of  the  powers  exercised  and orders passed by the Commissioner and, therefore, the Appellate Authority cannot be the original authority. 4. Be that as it may, when this matter was pending before  this  Court,  by  order  dated  4.7.2016,  this Court passed the following order:-

“The Commissioner Corporation of Madurai to file an affidavit within four weeks with regard to the status of the building as to the  violations.   In  case  there  are violations,  can  those  violations  be regularized.”

5. The  Commissioner  has  filed  an  affidavit  in response to the order referred to above.  Paragraph 4 of the affidavit reads as follows:-

“4. It is submitted that these are the violations committed by the 1st Respondents. The Madurai Corporation has powers to grant plan  permission  for  commercial  buildings below  2000  sq.ft.  and  has  no  powers  to regulate  any  violations  noticed.   All  the powers  to  regularise  the  violations  are

2

vested with the Director of Town and Country Planning and the Government as per section 4(3) of development control rule in Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.  Hence the respondent has to submit an application with the plan to the Director of Town and Country Planning through Madurai Corporation and Madurai Local Planning Authority.”

6. Since the alleged violation is in excess of 2000 sq.  ft.,  it  is  submitted  by  the  learned  senior counsel for the appellant that the power is only with the Director, Town and Country Planning. 7. Learned  counsel  appearing  for  Respondent  No.1, however, submits that this is a construction of the year 2012 on a building the ground floor to which was constructed in the year 1964.  Therefore, the alleged construction on the said ground floor cannot be taken as  a violation  in terms  of Regulations  which have been issued in the year 2010.   8. This  and  all  other  contentions  are  certainly available to the respondents to be taken before the Director, Town and Country Planning.  We are informed that  the  respondent  has  already  approached  the Director, Town and Country Planning. 9. We direct the Director, Town and Country Planning

3

to consider the appeal filed by Respondent No.1 after affording  an  opportunity  for  hearing  to  the respondents as well as the Municipal Corporation and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, after adverting to all the contentions taken by the  parties.   We  make  it  clear  that  none  of  the observations in the impugned orders shall stand in the way of the Director, Town and Country Planning passing  an  order  on  merits.   Till  the  orders  are passed by the Director, Town and Country Planning, we restrain  the  Municipal  Corporation  from  taking  any coercive steps against the respondent in respect of the alleged unauthorized construction.  We direct the Director, Town and Country Planning to pass orders expeditiously, and in any case within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 10. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. 11. In view of the above order passed in the civil appeal, we do not find any need to proceed with the contempt petition.   12. The  Contempt  Petition  No.  441/2014  is, accordingly, dismissed.

4

13. Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of. 14. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [R. BANUMATHI]  

NEW DELHI; AUGUST 02, 2017.

5

ITEM NO.5               COURT NO.6               SECTION XII                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)  No(s).  34892/2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  25-03-2013 in WPC No. 10221/2012 passed by the High Court Of Madras) THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF MADURAI   PETITIONER(S)                                 VERSUS DR. I. ISMAIL AND ORS                               RESPONDENT(S) WITH CONMT.PET.(C) No. 441/2014 In SLP(C) No. 34892/2013  Date : 02-08-2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH          HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Sr.Adv. Mr. S. Nithin,Adv. Mr. Pranjal Kishore,Adv.

                 Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra-I, AOR                     For Respondent(s) Mr. G. Balaji, AOR                               UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

Leave granted. The  appeal  is  disposed  of  and  the  contempt  petition  is

dismissed in terms of the signed judgment.

(NARENDRA PRASAD)                               (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER (SH)                              ASST. REGISTRAR

(Signed “Non-Reportable” Judgment is placed on the file)

6