Madras High Court
Sunrise Club-Covai Rep By vs The Commissioner on 11 March, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
2025:MHC:692
W.P.No.39241 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.03.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.P.No.39241 of 2024
Sunrise Club-Covai rep by
its Secretary S.Arokiyasamy
S No.219/1B, Somanur Main Road
Karumathampatti Village, Coimbatore .. Petitioner
v.
1. The Commissioner
Karumathampatti Municipality
Somanur, Coimbatore 641 668
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
Somanur, Coimbatore
3. S.Tangavel
4. S.Vijayarangan .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of
____________
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 04:24:42 pm )
W.P.No.39241 of 2024
the 1st respondent made in Na.Ka.No.2132/2024/F1 dated 26.11.2024 and
quash the same as null and void, illegal and consequently permit the
petitioner to conduct his business without any hindrance from the 1st
respondent or anyone claiming through him at the petition premises and
further direct the 2nd respondent to provide electricity service connection to
the petition premises at Sun Rise Club-Covai, S.No.219/1B, Somanur Main
Road, Karumathampatti, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner :: Mr.N.Vanaraj
For Respondents :: Mr.P.Srinivas for R1
Ms.Sindhuza M.S for
Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh for R2
No appearance for R3
Mr.R.Harikrishnan for R4
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
The notice issued by the Commissioner, Karumathampatti
Municipality dated 26.11.2024 is sought to be assailed in the present writ
proceedings.
2. The petitioner is Sunrise Club-Covai represented by its Secretary
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 04:24:42 pm )
S.Arokiyasamy. The petitioner claims to be a society registered under the
Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. Admittedly, the petitioner is a tenant
under one Mr.S.Tangavel, who is the owner of the said property. A
complaint was received by the Commissioner, Karumathampatti
Municipality stating that the said Mr.S.Tangavel constructed the subject
building unauthorizedly without obtaining building plan permission from
the competent authority. The municipal authorities conducted an inspection
and found that no building plan approval was granted and the building is
wholly unauthorized. Thus a notice was issued on 24.10.2024 calling upon
the owner to submit documents to establish that building plan permission
has been granted. Since the owner of the building Mr.S.Tangavel is unable
to produce any valid document regarding building plan approval, further
action was initiated by the Commissioner, Karumathampatti Municipality
under Section 135 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998.
Accordingly, the impugned notice was issued in proceeding daed
26.11.2024 asking the owner of the building Mr.S.Tangavel to demolish the
building, failing which the Municipality would initiate action for demolition
of the building and recover expenditures from the owner of the building.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 04:24:42 pm )
3. Curiously, the present writ petition has been filed by a tenant.
Though notice has been served on the third respondent, he has not chosen to
appear before this Court. Mr.R.Harikrishnan, learned counsel appears for
the fourth respondent.
4. Landlord-tenant dispute is pending between the third respondent
and the writ petitioner. Action was initiated by the Municipality pursuant to
the writ petition filed by the fourth respondent in W.P.No.31152 of 2024,
wherein this Court passed the order dated 23.10.2024 to initiate appropriate
action against the unauthorized building.
5. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that the
petitioner is running a recreational club by duly obtaining permission from
the competent authorities. Licence has been obtained to run a bar. However,
the petitioner is a tenant and therefore he is noway connected with the
unauthorized building, since notice itself was served on the owner of the
building.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 04:24:42 pm )
6. The petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition. If
at all the petitioner has any grievance against the landlord, it is to be
redressed by approaching the competent civil Court of law and in the
present case, litigation is pending between the writ petitioner and the third
respondent/landlord. Therefore, the petitioner, instead of redressing its
grievance against the third respondent in the manner known to law, filed the
present writ petition in order to protract and prolong the demolition
proceedings already initiated by the municipal authorities.
7. In respect of recreational clubs like that of the petitioner, police
authorities have to conduct frequent inspection to monitor the activities of
recreational clubs. This Court as well as the Government of Tamil Nadu
issued several directions for running of such recreational clubs. The
Director General of Police also issued circular to ensure that the bylaws
approved under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act have been
implemented properly and in the event of violation, actions are taken in
coordination with the Societies Registration authorities and other officials in
connection with the affairs of the State.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 04:24:42 pm )
8. In this context, the legal principles in the matter of unauthorized
construction have been enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and another v. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad and others (Civil Appeal No.14604 of 2024 dated 17.12.2024)
elaborately and the directives issued by the Supreme Court in the said
judgment are reproduced hereunder:-
21. Therefore, in the larger public interest, we are inclined to issue the
following directions, in addition to the directives issued by this Court in
Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures (supra):
(i) While issuing the building planning permission, an undertaking be
obtained from the builder/applicant, as the case may be, to the effect
that possession of the building will be entrusted and/or handed over to
the owners/beneficiaries only after obtaining completion/occupation
certificate from the authorities concerned.
(ii) The builder/developer/owner shall cause to be displayed at the
construction site, a copy of the approved plan during the entire period
of construction and the 32 authorities concerned shall inspect the
premises periodically and maintain a record of such inspection in their
official records.
(iii) Upon conducting personal inspection and being satisfied that the
building is constructed in accordance with the building planning
permission given and there is no deviation in such construction in any
manner, the completion/occupation certificate in respect of residential /
commercial building, be issued by the authority concerned to the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 04:24:42 pm )
parties concerned, without causing undue delay. If any deviation is
noticed, action must be taken in accordance with the Act and the
process of issuance of completion/occupation certificate should be
deferred, unless and until the deviations pointed out are completely
rectified.
(iv) All the necessary service connections, such as, Electricity, water
supply, sewerage connection, etc., shall be given by the service
provider / Board to the buildings only after the production of the
completion/occupation certificate.
(v) Even after issuance of completion certificate, deviation / violation
if any contrary to the planning permission brought to the notice of the
authority immediate steps be taken by the said authority concerned, in
accordance with law, against the builder / owner / occupant; and the
official, who is responsible for issuance of wrongful completion
/occupation certificate shall be proceeded departmentally forthwith.
(vi) No permission /licence to conduct any business/trade must be
given by any authorities including local bodies of States/Union
Territories in any unauthorized building irrespective of it being
residential or commercial building.
(vii) The development must be in conformity with the zonal plan and
usage. Any modification to such zonal plan and usage must be taken by
strictly following the rules in place and in consideration of the larger
public interest and the impact on the environment.
(viii) Whenever any request is made by the respective authority under
the planning department/local body for co-operation from another
department to take action against any unauthorized construction, the
latter shall render immediate assistance and co-operation and any delay
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 04:24:42 pm )
or dereliction would be viewed seriously. The States/UT must also take
disciplinary action against the erring officials once it is brought to their
knowledge.
(ix) In the event of any application / appeal / revision being filed by
the owner or builder against the non-issuance of completion certificate
or for regularisation of unauthorised construction or rectification of
deviation etc., the same shall be disposed of by the authority concerned,
including the pending appeals / revisions, as expeditiously as possible,
in any event not later than 90 days as statutorily provided.
(x) If the authorities strictly adhere to the earlier directions issued by
this court and those being passed today, they would have deterrent
effect and the quantum of litigation before the Tribunal / Courts
relating to house / building constructions would come down drastically.
Hence, necessary instructions should be issued by all the State/UT
Governments in the form of Circular to all concerned with a warning
that all directions must be scrupulously followed and failure to do so
will be viewed seriously, with departmental action being initiated
against the erring officials as per law.
(xi) Banks / financial institutions shall sanction loan against any
building as a security only after verifying the completion/occupation
certificate issued to a building on production of the same by the parties
concerned.
(xii) The violation of any of the directions would lead to initiation of
contempt proceedings in addition to the prosecution under the
respective laws.”
9. In the light of the above directives, in the present case, the owner
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 04:24:42 pm )
of the building i.e., third respondent has not produced any valid document
to establish that building plan permission was granted. Already opportunity
was granted to the owner to demolish the building within the time limit
fixed in the impugned order dated 26.11.2024. Since no action has been
taken by the owner of the building, the municipal authorities are bound to
initiate all further actions.
10. Accordingly, the respondents 1 & 2 are directed to implement the
enforcement actions already initiated by demolishing the unauthorized
building and restore the land to its original position on or before 27th April,
2025. With these observations, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.42501, 42503 & 42506 of 2024 are also
dismissed. No costs.
Post the writ petition before this Bench for reporting compliance on
28th April, 2025.
Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.)
Neutral citation : yes 11.03.2025
ss
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 04:24:42 pm )
To
1. The Commissioner
Karumathampatti Municipality
Somanur, Coimbatore 641 668
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd.,
Somanur, Coimbatore
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 04:24:42 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR,J.
ss
11.03.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 04:24:42 pm )
