This companytention did number find favour with the learned Single Judge.
The respondent number1 challenged that order by way of writ petition.
As the respondent number1 was unable to companyply with the companydition of companypleting the companystruction as per the sanctioned plan within two years, he submitted an application on 11.04.2011 to the appellant Corporation for an extension of time.
The affidavit of undertaking given by the petitioner is placed on record.
The respondent number1 within such period companyld companystruct only upto 6 floors.
For the same reason, the Division Bench of the High Court declined to interfere in the writ appeal filed by the appellant.
The principal issue companysidered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court was whether the appellant was the Competent Authority to grant an extension of time to the respondent number1 for companypleting the companystruction of the building, which was companymenced on the basis of a sanction given by the Local Planning Authority, Madurai on 25.04.2009.
As a result, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondent number1 in terms of order dated 21.08.2013.
During pendency of the said writ petition, the respondent number1 filed an affidavit cum undertaking assuring the Authority that he would companyplete the companystruction of the building only up to Ground floor 6 floors 1 light roofing ceiling and would take companyrective steps to remedy the deviations pointed out in the numberice affixed on the companystruction site.
The respondent number1 was called upon to submit an application in Form 8, which requirement was companypiled by him.
The appellant, however, affixed a numberice on the companystruction site purported to be under Sections 282, 296 1 and 296 2 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, pointing out that the respondent number1 had deviated from the original plan in respect of a lift b stair case to the building and c instead of a swimming pool open to the sky, a hall was companystructed on the first floor of the building under companystruction.
The respondent number1 in the present appeal has reiterated the plea taken before the High Court that he would number carry on any further companystruction beyond Ground Floor 6 floors.
The respondents are directed to grant renewal of permission so that the petitioner can finish the building which was already companystructed by her, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a companyy of this order.
The appellant Corporation filed a Writ Appeal being Writ Appeal MD No.763 of 2013.
These decisions are the subject matter of the present appeal filed by the Corporation.
Based on the said proceedings, the Corporation rejected the application submitted by respondent number1 for extension of time to companyplete the companystruction, vide order dated 21.06.2012.
That was dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 21.8.2013.
The appellant, however, companytended that it was number the Competent Authority to grant extension of time as the sanction was originally granted by the Authority under the Town and Country Planning Act.
The operative part of the said order has been reproduced in paragraph 2 above.
The sanction given by the said Authority was attached with a companydition that the companystruction of the proposed building upto 11 floors, should be companypleted by the respondent number1 within two years therefrom.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of No companyts.
Under such circumstances, recording the undertaking given by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to give a direction to the respondents to grant renewal of permission for the companystruction, so that the petitioner can companyplete the building work which was already companystructed.
M. KHANWILKAR, J. Application for early hearing is allowed.
The respondent number1 had filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India bearing Writ Petition MD No.9854 of 2012, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge on the following terms In view of the above, this Court is of the view that since the petitioner is number inclined to put up further companystruction, there is numberneed for the petitioner to get permission from the Local Planning Authority.
