A writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution for issuing a writ of mandamus to direct the 1st Respondent to act upon the representation of the Petitioner. Further, it was prayed to investigate the affairs of the 2nd Respondent for taking appropriate action in a time-bound manner and to dispose of the same in terms of the rules framed by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
Facts of the Case
The Petitioner had filed a complaint against the 2nd Respondent for violating the approved plan. The 1st Respondent had approved the plan in the order dated 13.04.2009. Later, a revised plan was submitted and approved in 2013 and the third approval was also approved in 2018. The Petitioner had stated that the 2nd Respondent had constructed only 25 towers. However, according to the planning permission and the approval granted was to construct 30 towers. Thus the Petitioner had objected to the 1st Respondent for violating the planning permission. However, the objection was not considered by the 1st Respondent, the Petitioner had thus filed a writ petition.
Arguments by the Parties
The 2nd Respondent submitted that he had constructed the building according to the planning permission granted by the authorities and thus there was no violation or deviation in the construction of which the Petitioner was alleging him of. The Respondent had also submitted that the dispute regarding the violation of the planning permission could be decided by the authorities considering the Petitioner’s representation dated 25.11.2020.
The Court had observed that the objection made by the Petitioner dated 25.11.2020 to 1st Respondent was still pending and no orders were passed, thus it was directed to 1st Respondent to consider the objection of the Petitioner dated 25.11.2020.
The Court had thus directed the 1st Respondent to consider the objection submitted by the Petitioner and pass orders on merits following laws after allowing the Petitioner and 2nd Respondent. It was also directed that the Petitioner should furnish additional documents if any within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
The first Respondent should consider and pass orders on the Petitioner’s objection dated 25.11.2021 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Court also stated that if any additional documents were not filed, the authorities should proceed and dispose of the application dated 25.11.2020.
The writ petition was thus disposed of.
Metrozone Apartment Owners Association v. The Member Secretary & another
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.