CMDA fined in Peerkangaranai case

First bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice R Mahadevan on taking strong exception to CMDA’s inaction in demolishing the illegal construction put up by a ward councilor, said “The repeated cases coming before this court show a complete absence of realisation on part of the authorities to perform their statutory duties. It appears that unless they are egged on by complaints or judicial orders, they don’t seem to work. This position is unacceptable.” S Narayanan of Srinivasan Nagar in Peerkangaranai had contended that his neighbour S Rakesh Kumar, a ward councilor had illegally put up a commercial-cum-residential structure comprising of ground floor plus two floors. But the local body on examining it refused approval. His plea for regularisng it was rejected in 2014 and his subsequent appeal was also rejected with the Housing and Urban Development issuing a Government Order on May 30, 2016 to demolish the structure. But despite the enforcement cell in the CMDA receiving the GO for demolishing the building on July 19, 2016 no action had followed, prompting him to approach the court, he submitted. 

Also, the bench on recording CMDA’s submission that they had acted by issuing stop work notice on May 20, 2013, lock and seal notice on April 9, 2014 and demolition notice on May 16, 2014, said “In this process of time, construction of the building had gone on, which is apparent from the photographs.” Based on this the bench also held that “We consider this a complete abdication of statutory duties by the concerned authorities and we direct the member secretary, CMDA to hold a departmental enquiry to fix responsibility and file a report before us in respect thereof.” Posting the case for compliance to November 25, the bench directed CMDA to pay Rs.5000 of the Rs.10,000 cost imposed to the petitioner for compelling him to approach the court and deposit the remaining with the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, within two weeks. It also asked CMDA to recover the amount from the delinquent officer.

The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea moved by a senior office bearer of the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) alleging encroachment by GRT Hotels and Resorts (P) Limited, at Mahabalipuram.

The First Bench Comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice R. Mahadevan, which dismissed the PIL filed by V. Kittu, District Deputy Secretary, VCK. Kanchipuram, said “In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any force in the allegations of the petitioner and that too styled as PIL. The affidavit of Government authorities clarifies the position so far as the land records are concerned and show that what India Tourism Development Corporation Limited (ITDC), owned has been passed on to GRT Hotels, which they must be allowed to enjoy, use and unhindered by any obstructions.” 

The plea had alleged that GRT hotels had encroached on 9.99 acres of land in Mamallapuram-Village, which was meant for public use. The plea also claimed that the hotel building was constructed in violation of the rules and regulations and bogus patta’s were obtained to avail loans. It also alleged that the Hotel had encroached the burial grounds of different communities. 

The Madras High Court has closed a plea moved by PMK seeking a judicial inquiry into the 2013 caste violence that had erupted in Marakkanam. First bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice R Mahadevan on recording the submission of senior counsel N L Rajah appearing for PMK that with passage of time tempers have been cooled and possibly better rationality prevails and that he will not press for original relief, closed the plea. But, the bench on recording his submission that to avoid such situations in the future the police ought to go by a research paper on “Human Rights and Policing”, comprising landmark Supreme Court directives and National Human Rights Commission Guidelines, directed the Home Secretary to issue government orders circulating the material at the ground level to the police force on how to deal with such situations.  The bench also held “If the citizens realise their responsibility, the occasion for such occurrences or police intervention would not arise.  This requires greater social responsibility.