2017 INSC 0621
                          SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                    The Commissioner, Corporation of Madurai

                             Vs.

                          Dr.I Ismail

                          C.A.No.10002 of 2017

                          (Kurian Joseph and R.Banumathi,JJ.,)

                          02.08.2017

                          JUDGMENT

Kurian Joseph, J.,

SLP(Civil) No.34892/2013

1. Leave granted.

2. The Commissioner, Corporation of Madurai is before this Court, aggrieved by the
judgment of the High Court. The issue pertains to the steps taken by the Commissioner by
proceeding against respondent No.1 for the alleged construction in violation of the Rules.
The stand taken by Respondent No.1 is that the construction is as per the permission granted
by the Standing Committee for Town Planning and Development Corporation of Madurai.

3. It is pointed out by Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant, under the Rules, Standing Committee is only the Appellate Authority in respect of
the powers exercised and orders passed by the Commissioner and, therefore, the Appellate
Authority cannot be the original authority.

4. Be that as it may, when this matter was pending before this Court, by order dated
4.7.2016, this Court passed the following order:-

"The Commissioner Corporation of Madurai to file an affidavit within four weeks
with regard to the status of the building as to the violations. In case there are
violations, can those violations be regularized."

5. The Commissioner has filed an affidavit in response to the order referred to above.
Paragraph 4 of the affidavit reads as follows:-

"4. It is submitted that these are the violations committed by the 1st Respondents. The
Madurai Corporation has powers to grant plan permission for commercial buildings

                          1                                     SpotLaw
        below 2000 sq.ft. and has no powers to regulate any violations noticed. All the
        powers to regularise the violations are vested with the Director of Town and Country
        Planning and the Government as per section 4(3) of development control rule in
        Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. Hence the respondent has to
        submit an application with the plan to the Director of Town and Country Planning
        through Madurai Corporation and Madurai Local Planning Authority."

6. Since the alleged violation is in excess of 2000 sq.ft., it is submitted by the learned senior
counsel for the appellant that the power is only with the Director, Town and Country
Planning.

7. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, however, submits that this is a
construction of the year 2012 on a building the ground floor to which was constructed in the
year 1964. Therefore, the alleged construction on the said ground floor cannot be taken as a
violation in terms of Regulations which have been issued in the year 2010.

8. This and all other contentions are certainly available to the respondents to be taken before
the Director, Town and Country Planning. We are informed that the respondent has already
approached the Director, Town and Country Planning.

9. We direct the Director, Town and Country Planning to consider the appeal filed by
Respondent No.1 after affording an opportunity for hearing to the respondents as well as the
Municipal Corporation and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, after
adverting to all the contentions taken by the parties. We make it clear that none of the
observations in the impugned orders shall stand in the way of the Director, Town and
Country Planning passing an order on merits. Till the orders are passed by the Director,
Town and Country Planning, we restrain the Municipal Corporation from taking any
coercive steps against the respondent in respect of the alleged unauthorized construction. We
direct the Director, Town and Country Planning to pass orders expeditiously, and in any case
within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

10. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

11. In view of the above order passed in the civil appeal, we do not find any need to proceed
with the contempt petition.

12. The Contempt Petition No. 441/2014 is, accordingly, dismissed.

13. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

14. There shall be no orders as to costs.

2  SpotLaw