@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. Admit. Learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice. At request of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner club is aggrieved by the action taken by the respondent in pursuance of the notice issued under Section 56 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (hereinafter called as ''the said Act'').
3. The said notice alleges that a commercial building at ground floor level measuring 119'' 9" x 15'' 9" at S.F. Nos. 3949 at Club Road, Town Udhagai Taluk, Nilgiris District is an unauthorised construction, as it has been carried out without the permission/approval required under Section 49 of the said Act. The petitioner was given 30 days time from the date of the notice, failing which action would be taken under different clauses of Section 56 of the said Act to lock and seal the premises, demolish and restore the land to the original condition. This notice has been received by the petitioner on 18.09.2014 as per endorsement made in the notice, a position not disputed before us.
4. The petitioner addressed a reply dated 12.10.2014, referring to the receipt of the notice on 10.10.2014 (stated to be a mistake). This reply is thus within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice. In the reply, it is stated that no unauthorised construction has been made and what is being referred to is actually a "Firewood Shed", which has been in existence for more than 50 years. The site plan of the ancient origin in the records of the petitioner is stated to have contained the details of the said "Firewood Shed", which in its original condition was made of 10 reapers and zink sheets erected on the wall of five feet height made up of brick and mud. In the year 1979, when there was a storm in the city, which is stated to have resulted in a deluge all over Ootacamund, a few zink sheets were blown out in the wind. Repairs and renovations are stated to have been carried on, and the wall was plastered to strengthen the same.
5. The respondent thereafter issued a notice dated 18.10.2014 qua the Firewood Shed to seal the premises on 05.11.2014. It is, however, alleged in the affidavit that even before the expiry of the notice period, it was sealed on 31.10.2014.
6. There is a threefold grievance made by the petitioner:
(i) The provision of the said Act would not apply to the Firewood shed that existed prior to the coming into force of the said Act. On a query, it is stated that the provisions of the Madras Town Planning Act, 1920 would govern the case.
(ii) There is no reasoned order passed in pursuance of the reply submitted by the petitioner on 12.10.2014.
(iii) The building was sealed even prior to the date specified in the notice for such sealing.
7. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are unable to make out whether it is really a mistake or a deliberate act of sending defective notices, only to comply with general directions passed by this Court qua unauthorised construction in Ooty. The authorities concerned have slept over the matter for years together and only seemed to act when the court passes orders, as if they are denuded of any statutory authority. When the Court directs action in accordance with law, defective actions are taken, which only facilitate stay orders being obtained by the aggrieved parties and the burden is shifted on to the Court. The respondent was certainly called upon to pass a speaking order, once the reply dated 10.12.2013 was placed on record, specifically qua the main issue on the structure pre-dating the Act, which makes the notice non est. Renovations were of course, admittedly carried out thereafter and that fact is said to have been verified. We are also fail to appreciate how a sealing would take place prior to the expiry of the date specified in the notices for sealing.
8. In the given facts and circumstances, we have no option but to quash the notice dated 28.10.2014 and the action taken pursuant thereto, directing the respondent to de-seal the premises. The respondent shall proceed in pursuance of the earlier notice dated 04.09.2014, the reply furnished by the petitioner on 12.10.2014 and pass a reasoned order, for which purpose it will look into the records or call for further clarification from the petitioner. They shall endeavour to conclude the proceedings in a time bound manner within two months from today.
9. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. A copy of the order be issued to the respondent within two days.
