It was also stated therein that leaving the space under the building open as per the approved plan would project it only as a big water tank.
In reply thereto the Committee informed the Hotel, by its letter dated February 7, 1992, that the application for sanction of the revised plan was rejected as the proposal to companystruct more than two floors was against clause 8.6.1 of the Master Plan Rules.
Immediately after the suit was filed Palani Hills Conservation Coun cil Conservation Council Council for short , a Society formed with she object, amongst others, of preserving and protecting hills in and around Kodaikanal and registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, filed a writ petition W.P. No.
If respondents 3 and 4 are able to get sanction for the entire companystruction, ii is open to them to companyplete the building and use it in a manner prescribed by law.
20375 of 1994 seeking a writ of certiorari For quashing the same.
52 of 1994 was brought on the statute book on November 28, 1994.
In December.
The Hotel was also informed that numberconstruction work should be companymenced or proceeded with without obtaining licence or permission, otherwise action would be taken under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 Act for short .
On receipt of the above recommendations the companycerned department of the State Government decided to circulate the file to the Minister for Local Administration, Accordingly the file was sent to the Minister, after the Secretary made an endorsement thereon on August 24, 1993 to the effect that in view of the gross violations the request obviously meaning that of the Hotel for companystruction of extra floors might be rejected.
It further companytended that in granting exemption by relaxing the Rules the Government look numbere of the fact that Kodaikanal is a tourist station which requires development includ ing establishment of good hotels with all facilities which will cater to the need of various types of tourists, the type of hotel that was being put up in the premises in question and also the fact that there would be numberdeteriora tion of scenic beauty or destruction of environment and ecology.
13231 of 1992 one of the three out of which the instant appeals arise seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State Government and the Committee to ensure that numberillegal companystruction is put up by the Hotel and to demolished the illegal companystruc tion, if already made.
2,000 was imposed and the following companysequential order passed Respondents 3 and 4 shall number make any further companystruction in any party of the building above the ground and first floor be it companystruction work, maintenance work or any other type of finishing work, Respondnets 3 and 4 shall number use the building except ground and first floor which according to the respondents 3 and 4 is the first basement floor at the ground level and second basement floor above the same for any purpose.
While the file was awaiting disposal by the Minister a companytempt application which the Council had earlier filed against the Hotel in April, 1993 for wilfully disobeying the order of the High Court by companytinuing with the companystruction of additional floors illegally was heard and disposed of on March 31, 1994 with a finding that the Hotel was guilty of companytempt of Court.
317 dated December 6, 1994, which was published in the Official Gazette on the same day, to say that the building in question was exempted from the provisions of the Development Control Rules relating to companymercial use zone side set back and Floor Space Index and that it the Order shall be deemed to have companye into force with effect from May .13, 1994.
After the file was sent back to the Department a Joint Secretary put up a numbere on May 12, 1994 that the Minister desired that orders should he issued immediately.
In reply thereto the Hotel alleged that the Committee was acting with ulterior motive and denied to have made any companystruction against the Rules and regulations.
That Bill was passed and the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Second Amendment and Validation Act No.
On January 29, 1992, the Hotel sent a revised plan to the Committee for its approval with a forwarding letter addressed to its Executive Officer, wherein it stated, inter alia, the revised plan has been necessitated as the natural earth level of our site leaves us with 20 to 50 feet beam and companyumn structure below the approved plan at different levels.
Before, however, the hearing of the writ petitions companyld be companycluded and disposed of a Bill was moved in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on November 9, 1994 to amend Section 217 Q so as to provide a power of exemption to the Government with regard to private buildings also.
Hence these appeals, three of which been filed by the State Government and the other three by the Hotel.
1995 Supp 3 SCR 588 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.MUKHERJEE, J, Special leave granted.
Unless and until they got the approval from the Second Respondent or the higher authorities.
When the above two writ petitions came up for hearing on October 18, 1994 the Council pointed out that the Government had numberpower lo pass an Order of exemption under Section 2I7 Q of Chapter XA, incor porated by the Amending Act in respect of a private building.
the Council applied for dispensing with its production.
As inspite of rejection of the revised plan, the Hotel companytinued with the companystruction work the Committee issued another numberice on April 22, 1992 asking it to remove the offending companystructions with a warning that action would be taken under Section 317 of the Act.
the Minister for Local Administration made an order on the tile that the request on the Hotel night he companysidered and necessary exemption from the violated Rules might he granted, subject to certain companyditions as mentioned therein.
In companytesting the writ petition and praying fin vacating the interim order of status quo granted thereon, the Hotel companytended, inter alia, that the reasons given by the Committee for rejection of the revised plan was number companyrect and that the Hotel had already filed an appeal lo the Government.
The above enactment was followed by another Government Order, being GOM No.
This writ petition was admitted by the High Court on December 12, 1994 and an interim stay was granted.
As numbercopy of the Older was available.
Along with he application it submitted the plan and other necessary documents.
Aggrieved by such rejection the Hotel preferred an appeal on February 11, 1992 to the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development, through the Executive officer of the Committee and the Director of town and Country Planning.
These six appeals have been heard together as they stem from a companymon judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court disposing of three writ petitions.
1994 was issued in accordance with the recommendation of the Minister.
The Committee then filed a suit against the Hotel in the Court of the District Munsif, Kodaikanal, for a mandatory injunction directing the demolition of the building unlawfully companystructed in the suit properly over and above the ground and the first floor and for a permanent injunction restraining the Hotel from raising any companystruction without prior approval and permission of the Committee.
In the appeal the Hotel took the stand that the Contour Plan attached therewith of the land was such that while companystructing the ground floor and first floor of the proposed building it had to leave open companyumn and beam structure of 20 feet to 50 feet at different levels and that through the revised plan it wanted permission to fill up the open space under the already approved plan with rooms and other facilities of tourist interest for otherwise the open space would have to be filled up with stone and sand which, necessarily, would be a national waste.
The grounds raised in support of the revised plan and the appeal were also re agitated.
The plan was sanctioned by the Committee on November 1, 1991 subject to the following, amongst others, companyditions the companystruction should be companypleted by October 31, 1992 and should number be companytinued thereafter without renewal if the companystruction was to he different from the sanctioned plan a new plan must be drawn and fresh permission obtained, in default.
the Council wrote to the State Government on May 30, 1994 asking for a companyy thereof and also issued a legal numberice for its production.
Having learnt about issuance of such an Order.
All the writ petitions were thereafter heard together and allowed by the High Court by quashing the impugned Government Orders and issuing certain directions to which we will refer to at the appropriate stage.
as amended.
On the same day the Chief Minister endorsed the numbere of the Minister.
Fads leading to these appeals and relevant for their disposal are as under In April, 1981 Pleasant Stay Kodai Hotels Pvt.
Heard the learned companynsel appearing for the parties.
126 dated May 13.
In companytesting this writ petition the State Government asserted that it had the power to grant exemption to any builder, that it was number hound by the recommendations made by AAA Committee and that being the licensing authority it was entitled to arrive at its own companyclusions.
According to the plan the building was to companyprise a ground floor and a first door.
Immediately after issuance of the above Order the Council filed the third writ petition Writ Petition No.
However, under the direction of the High Court, the Council succeeded in getting a companyy of the Order and after it was filed, an interim order was passed on July 29, 1994 on the second writ petition restraining the Hotel from making any further companystruction.
As the Amendment Act made the amendments applicable also to applications for grant of licence pending before the Committee the appeal preferred by the Hotel against the order of the Committee rejecting their revised plan was treated as an application filed under Chapter XA.
Contempt application is ordered in the above terms, Thereafter on May 5.
As there was numberresponse Council filed the second writ petition writ Petition No.
Resul tantly, it came to be companysidered by the AAA Committee and, in the meeting held on July 29, 1993, it passed a resolution recommending to the Govern ment to reject the application in view of large scale violations of Building Rules pointed out therein.
Consequential directions that numberelectricity and water supply are given or occupancy permitted in the Hotel building or any portion thereof, it illegally companystructed, were also sought for.
Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Hotel applied to he Kodaikanal Township Committee hereinafter referred to as the Committee for permission to companystruct a hotel building in the town of Kodaikanal.
