AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner seeks the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent to forthwith grant building permit to the Petitioner in respect of the construction undertaken in Survey Nos. 4288/2 and 4288/14, in Santhome Village, Chennai - 600 028, in the light of the Planning Permission granted by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority in its Planning Permission No. C.3/14876/96 dated 20.7.1996 and pursuant to the gift deed executed in favour of the Corporation of Chennai by the Petitioner as condition precedent for the grant of planning permission which was duly accepted and acted upon by the respondent and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of Justice. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is said that the Petitioner, his brother''s wife Mrs. Meena Muthiah and her adopted son have proposed to put up construction of a multistoreyed building for residential purposes in the lands owned by them in Survey Nos. 4288/2 and 4288/14, situate in Santhome Village, Chennai -28. The total extent of the said lands where the proposed constructions are to be put up are 88 grounds. In view of the vast extent of the property, petitioner thought of putting up basement, ground plus nine floors, after complying with all the requirements prescribed by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and the Development Control Rules framed thereunder. Petitioner filed his application before the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority on 27.04.1995. On receipt of the Application, the Authority required the other bodies, namely, Director of Fire Services. Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Chief Engineer, Corporation of Madras, to give their No Objection for further processing the Planning Permission application after considering the permissibility of the building from the point of view and guidelines prescribed by those Authorities. It is further stated that the Director of Fire Services, by his communication dated 26.5.1995, informed the Petitioner that an inspection would be conducted for consideration of the grant of NOC by the officials of the Fire Service Department on 31.05.1995. After inspection, by communication dated 29.06.1995, the Director of Fire Services informed the Petitioner that he has no objection for according planning permission. The Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewarage Board also informed the Petitioner asking him to remit nearly a sum of Rs. 7,28,000/- towards infrastructural development charges so that it would be in a position to provide water and sewerage facilities by creating necessary infrastructure. It is further stated therein that the Chief Engineer of the Corporation of Chennai, who is also a member of the Committee constituted by the CMDA for scrutinising the planning permission application in respect of construction of multistoreyed building also informed the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority that the Petitioner''s plan has been scrutinised and he has recommended the proposal to be placed in the Panel Meeting. In that letter, Petitioner was asked to submit certain foundation details suggested by soil test and load calculation. As the construction was for the purpose of putting up multi-storeyed building in accordance with the prescription of C.M.D.A., an applicant for planning permission should either pay a compensatory amount called as Open Space Reservation Charges or in the alternative agree to gift a proportionate extent of land equivalent to the value of open space reservation chares in favour of the Corporation of Chennai. Petitioner furnished all the details that were sought for and the Expert Panel of the CMDA addressed a letter on 6.10.1995 to the Government that the proposal of the Petitioner had been examined and placed before the Panel Meeting of the CMDA on 27.09.1995, and, after due consideration, the Expert Panel recommended issuance of planning permission on certain terms and conditions. The Government, on receipt of the said recommendation letter, was inclined to grant its approval subject to the condition that the Petitioner obtains No Objection Certificate from the Madras Regional Advisory Committee and Civil Aviation Department as pre-condition for issue of planning permission and subject to fulfilment of the conditions imposed by the Director of Fire Services and Metro Water. In view of the conditional approval of the Panel''s recommendation by the Government, the CMDA., by letter dated 11.1995, wanted the Petitioner to remit a sum of Rs. 2,02,000/- towards development charges and a sum of Rs. 71,40,000/- towards security deposit. The said condition was also complied with. On receipt of the amount, the CMDA informed the Respondent that in accordance with the Development Control Rules, the areas earmarked as Open Space Reservation Area has to be handed over to the Corporation and requested the Corporation to advise the Petitioner to hand over the OSR Area through a registered gift deed. Pursuant to the same, a registered gift deed was also executed and the Corporation has also taken possession of the said area. The Respondent, as per letter dated 15.11.1995, informed the Petitioner to furnish particulars for consideration of the building application by the Corporation of Chennai, and wanted two clarifications, namely, (1) attested xerox copy of the ownership document '''' patta and non encumbrance certificate for a period of 18 years in respect of the land which was to be the subject matter of the gift and (2) to furnish a draft, copy of the gift deed for approval. The Petitioner complied with the same. In the meanwhile, the Department of Tele communication, by its letter dated 27.11.1995, informed the Petitioner that it has no objection for construction of the proposed building. The Government of India. Ministry of Communication, Monitoring Organisation also proceeded to give its no objection for the proposed communication received from the Directorate General, by All India Radio on 30.5.1996. In spite of having satisfied all the legal requirement, the planning permission was not received, and therefore, the petitioner wrote to CMDA and requested for sanction of the plan and also sent a copy of the sketch and original letter and requested the sanction to the Corporation under advice to the petitioner, for necessary action. On 20.7.1996, the CMDA proceeded to grant its planning permission only after satisfying that all the legal requirements have been complied with. The planning permission granted by CMDA was for a period of three years ending with 18.9.97. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that the CMDA had granted the Planning Permission after taking note of clearance from all other Authorities, the respondent corporation has not granted the building permit to him, and there was nothing else required by the respondent corporation as it was very much a party at all relevant point of time, and it was actively consulted in the matter of grant of planning permission by CMDA. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has to necessarily proceed with the construction of the building because of the permission granted by the CMDA that the grant of building permit by the respondent corporation, particularly after the acceptance of the Gift of the land for open space reservation charges, the Corporation has no right to withhold the building permit, or interfere with the petitioner''s right to put up the construction. The respondent is not granting permission on some irrelevant consideration. It is seen that the Corporation has informed the CMDA that prima facie the petitioner''s site may be affected by the Coastal Regulation Zone as the side in the question is very close in Adyar River. It is the case of the petitioner that the said objection is without any substance because, there are several residential buildings which have came up in the vicinity and also several other buildings are in the process of construction after obtaining necessary approval. It is further said that on 2.4.1997 petitioner himself has given the necessary clarification and the proposed construction was 720 metres from the high tide line of the Bay of Bengal for which sufficient proof had been submitted and this distance was measured and certified by the Indian Institute of Technology Madras. It is also stated that the petitioner also invited the attention of this respondent to the norms for regulation of activities under the Coastal Regulation Zones and particularly to Regulation 6(2) CRZ II which states that the building shall be permitted neither and the seaward side if the existing road (or roads proposed in the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan of the area) nor on seaward side of the existing authorised structures -Building permitted on the landward side of the existing and proposed roads existing authorised structures shall be subject the existing local town and country planning Regulations. including the existing name of FSI/FAR."
It is stated that there was an existing road between the Adyar River and the site and that since prohibition was only on the Seaward side and the proposed development was only on the landlord side, there could be absolutely no prohibition for construction of the building provided the petitioner complies with the requirements if the local Town and Country Planning Act. It is further stated that even between Adyar Creek river and the Petitioner''s proposed construction, there was a public road proposed as per Master Plan and it was well recognised that whenever there was a public road between creeks and the building. there cannot be any objection for any construction activity. It is said that these aspects had been examined by the appropriate authorities, and it was only thereafter the gift was accepted by the respondent, and there is no reason why at this stage, the respondent should delay the grant of permission. Even after 2.4.1997, petitioner met the respondent''s authorities and requested them for granting permit. As an alternate case, it is further said that since the building proposed to be constructed is a special type of building over an extent of 3000 Sq.ft or constructions having ground plus First Floor, permission of the respondent Corporation is not required. It is said that the Town and Country Planning Act was amended, and, any planning permission granted by the CMDA will be binding the Corporation also. It is further said that once the respondent has accepted the gift, fully knowing the location and the - of the road, it is estopped from raising doubt regarding the granting of planning permission. The act of the respondent, according to the petitioner, not only arbitrary and is / violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution, but is also in the teeth of the spirit behind the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and the Development Control Rules. It is therefore said that until 1974 the Corporation of Chennai was the exclusive planning authority in respect of any type of construction in the City of Madras. But, however, the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act was amended by introduction of Chapter II-A by which the CMDA was constituted with the object of taking care of development activities in the City of Chennai, the preparation of Master Plan, detailed development plans and new development plans, preparing existing land use, etc. When the Panel Committee of which the Chief Engineer of the Corporation of Madras is also a Member has recommended for the approval of the Plan and the Government has also acted since, the Corporation cannot delay the same for no reason, at any rate, the Government has also sent sanctioned / the proposed construction. The delay caused by the Respondent Corporation, according to the petitioner, is causing great prejudice to his building activities, and, for the above reason, he seeks the assistance of a writ as stated above.
At the time when the matter came for admission, learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation also took notice, and thereafter he filed a Counter Affidavit. Since the learned counsel on both sides agreed that the matter could be heard on 30.9.1997, and respondent also agreed to file in court on or before that date, and accordingly filed the same, the matter was heard to final disposal on that date.
A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent sworn to by the Commissioner of the Corporation. It is said that only after getting permission from the respondent, petitioner could put up a contraction. It is the case of the respondent that the Supreme Court in their Order in W.P. (Civil No. 664/93 dated 9.3.1995, has directed that all the restrictions, prohibitions regarding construction and setting up of Industries or for any other purpose contained in the Notification dated 19.2.2001 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India under clauses (d) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules 1986, shall be meticulously followed by all the states; the activities which have been declared as prohibited within the Coastal Regulation Zone shall not be undertaken by any of the States; and the regulations of permissible activities shall also be meticulously followed. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, respondent has extracted Letter No. 16342/EC.111/31-70 dated 12.11.1996. of the Environment and Forest Department. Government of India, wherein it has been stated thus -
"While approving the Coastal Zone Management Plant of the State with some modification has specified a condition that the Tamil Nadu Govt. shall ensure that all development activities in the Coastal Regulation Zone areas take place within the framework of the Coastal Zone Management Plan and violation shall be subject to be provisions of Environmental (Protection) Act. 1986, and other relevant laws. The High Tide Line is yet to be fixed in consultation with the Chief Hydrographer. Other particulars have to be collected and modified and have to be prepared as desired by the Government of India. Till such time, it is considered that planning permission shall not be issued within 500 m. from the High Tide Line and the backwater, creeks and estuaries."
It is further submitted by the respondent that while processing the building application given by the petition, it was noticed that the site is closely situated of the backwaters of Adyar river and it was found necessary to examine whether the site is indeed affected by the Coastal Regulation issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest Department, Government of India. Therefore, the respondent by letter dated 6.9.1996, requested the CMDA to clarify whether the proposal has been examined in the light of Coastal Regulations, since the CMDA is the appropriate authority for sanctioning the planning permit. It is said that the Corporation (Respondent) has not received any reply from CMDA. In the later portion of the counter affidavit, it is said that it has accepted the gift as per the instructions of the CMDA and has also taken possession of the property on 11.1.1996. It is further said that on receipt of reply from the CMDA necessary building permit will be given to the Petitioner.
I heard Learned counsel on both sides.
Certain admitted facts are:-
(1) Petitioner applied for a planning permission before the CMDA and the CMDA sent copies of the Application to various authorities including the respondent herein. (2)The petitioner obtained NOC from Fire Service Department as per their letter dated 29.6.1996. (3) Clearance from Telecom Department as per their letter dated 27.11.1995. (4) Clearance from the Ministry of Communications as per their letter dated 19.1.1996. (5) No objection certificate from All India Radio dated 30.5.1996, and (6) Necessary No objection Certificate from Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board.
It is also not disputed that the petitioner also obtained clearance from the Airport Authority as per letter dated 12.1.1996.
Planning Permission application was placed before the Panel Committee which consisted of the Chief Engineer of the Corporation Respondent, and they also recommended for approval by the Government. The Government, as per their letter dated 17.10.1995, has also grant and sanction subject only to two condition, namely, (1) that No Objection Certificates should be obtained from M.R.A.C. and Civil Aviation Department and produced by the applicant before the issue of Planning Permission, and (2) the conditions imposed by the Director of Fire Service and Metro water should be fulfilled. It is not a matter in dispute that the conditions stipulated in the Government Letter dated 17.10.1995 have been fulfilled.
After getting No Objection Certificate from various Authorities. Petitioner wrote to CMDA for planning permission. At that time, petitioner was informed to deposit certain amount and also to execute a gift deed, and is also bound to gift the property to the City Corporation. Thereafter, the CMDA addressed a letter to the Corporation to take possession of the gifted property copy of which was also sent to the Petitioner. The same is evidenced by a letter dated 14.11.1995. Immediately thereafter, the Corporation itself wrote to the Petitioner that a copy of the gift Deed may be sent to it so as to act on the application for Planning permission. In the meanwhile, as mentioned above, the petitioner also obtained clearance from the Telecom Department on 2.1.96, the Petitioner wrote to the Corporation with a draft of the Gift Deed and requested it to accept the Gift Deed. On 6.1.1996, the Corporation sent a letter of acceptance, and on 11.1.1996 the property was also handed over to it. So, the petitioner complied with all the requirements demanded by the various Authorities. Before accepting the Gift Deed, the Corporation only wanted two clarifications, namely (1) Title of the Petitioner to the property, and (2) a Patta in respect of the Gift Deed. The Petitioner immediately sent a xerox copy of the Patta in respect of the property, and also a copy of the Gift Deed which was subsequently accepted. It was further noted that before accepting the Gift, Respondent Corporation Council also passed a Resolution to accept the gift executed by the Petitioner and before accepting it, it also put a conditions that the area will have to be fenced and a gate will have to be installed. The same was also complied with by the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Respondent Corporation through the Assistant Executive Engineer, wanted the Petitioner to give further details as per their letter dated 7.8.1996. Within a few days, those conditions were also complied with, as evidenced by a reply letter of the Petitioner dated 16.8.1996. While so, the Development Authority itself wrote a letter to the Petitioner on 20.7.1996, informing the Petitioner that the Planning Permission has been approved subject to certain conditions i.e., Petitioner are requested to remit certain charges by way of development charges and security deposit and also that the Planning permit was valid for the period from 20.7.1996 to 10.7.1999. The amounts required to be deposited were also admitted. Of course, in that letter, it was stated by the Development Authority mat the approval is not final, and the applicant has to approach the Corporation for the issue of building permit and only thereafter construction should be commenced.
It was thereafter, the Corporation wrote to the Petitioner on 7.8.1996, requested for certain clarifications. The clarification sought for were also explained, and necessary documents were also filed by the Petitioner as per their letter dated 16.8.1996, referred to above.
Thereafter, an inspection was also made by the CMDA and it was found that in the plan admitted, there were certain deviations and they were sought to be rectified, petitioner immediately rectified the same and admitted a revised plan to CMDA. When, in spite of submission of revised plan, the Corporation did not issue building permit, petitioner made an enquiry and then it was found that the Corporation entertained a doubt whether it violates the Coastal Regulation Notification. Though that letter was not communicated to the Petitioner, petitioner came to know the contents, and a detailed reply was sent by him on 2.4.1997. The receipt of the said letter is not disputed by the respondent. In that letter, the petitioner has said that the proposed construction is 720 metres away from the high tide line of the Bay of Bengal, and the same was measured and certified by the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras. It was further stated in that letter that there was a road in between the proposed construction and Adyar River, and in such a case, there is no question of any violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification. It was further brought to the notice of the Corporation that when the construction is on the landward side of the existing road, there cannot be any question of violation of Coastal Regulation Notification. In such case, only the local Authority has to decide about the Planning Permission. It is also brought to the notice of the Corporation that as per Special Conditions in the Modifications Classifications clauses 2(iii) of the Notification Along the rivers, creeks and backwaters which are influenced by tidal action, the CBZ will extend upto 500 m. However, the CBZ will extend only upto 100 m. along rivers, creeks and backwaters within areas which are categorised as CBZ II'', and, in view of the specific permission, permitting construction activities on the landward side, petitioner sought for the grant, of building permit on the basis of the said Regulation. Respondent has hot so far replied, nor has it denied the correctness of the statement made in that letter. Even in the counter affidavit, it is admitted that CMDA is the appropriate authority for sanctioning the planning permit, and the respondent has written letter on 20.7.96 regarding the applicability of Coastal Zone Regulations, and on getting reply from CMDA, it shall issue necessary building permit to the Petitioner. In para 5 of the Counter affidavit, the respondent has also extracted the letter of the Environment and Forest Department, Government of India dated 12.11.1996, wherein it is said that the planning permit shall not be issued within 500 m. from the High Tide Line and backwater, creeks and estuaries. When the Petitioner has specifically stated that the proposed building is 720 m. away from the high tide line, and it is based on the measurement taken by the Indian Institute of Technology Madras, and when this fact is not disputed anywhere in the counter affidavit, I do not think that the respondent is justified in delaying the grant of permit. It is after the letter dated G.12.1996 by the Respondent to CMDA, the site was inspected by the CMDA and wanted a revised plan, after rectifying the violations noted therein. Petitioner has complied with that Direction also. In this connection, the Petitioner has also brought to the notice of the Court Certificate of the Tahasildar, dated 7.5.97 to the effect that in between the petitioner''s property and Adyar River, there is public road having a distance of not less than 2000 feet, having a width of not less than 25 feet, and the road is the existence for not less than 20 years.
It is also seen from the Regulations that the prohibition is only for construction on the Seaward area and not for constructions, on the landward area. Regarding the proposed construction, a plan has also been filed by the Petitioner, which was issued by the Tahsildar. The proposed construction is on the land situated in the petitioner''s property towards the landward area close to the public road referred to in the Certificate. Petitioner has also asserted that the other persons close to the site in question, where building have been completed, or construction activities are going on. This fact is also not disputed by the respondent, and all those constructions are on the landward area for which the local Authority is the only sanctioning Authority. When the respondent is not disputed the basic facts alleged by the Petitioner, and is expressing only a doubt, I do not think that the respondent is justified in delaying the matter of passing orders on the application for building permit.
Learned counsel for petitioner also brought to my notice sub-section (3) (a) of Section 111 and also section 114 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, and contended that if permission is accorded by the Development Authority, that will be deemed to be a permission for all purposes, even if permission is not obtained from the local authority. It is also contended that when the Government has granted permit on certain conditions which have been subsequently satisfied, u/s 114 of the said Act, its decision shall be final. In this case, there is no dispute between the local Authority and the CMDA. The Government has granted permission on the recommendation of the CMDA. The contention that Section 111 (3)(a) of the Act applies to the facts of this case has force.
Since the petitioner has satisfied the statutory requirements, and the building permit has also been granted by the CMDA only after inspection, it must be presumed that the permission granted by it is the accordance with law. The respondent is also bound to issue necessary clearance certificate without am delay.
In the result, there will be a direction against the respondent to consider the petitioner''s application for building permission and pass final order on the same within ten days from the date of this Order. The Writ Petitioner is allowed as indicated above. without any order as to costs. W.M.P. 23725 of 1997 for direction is dismissed consequently.
ORDER: W.P. No. 15471 of 1997 (dt.14.10.1997)
Mr. S. Govind Swaminathan Senior Counsel for Mr. T. Mohan for Petitioner.
Sixth Respondent herein filed W.P 14823/97 against the Corporation of Chennai Fifth Respondent herein, and the same has been disposed of to-day. In that case, the Sixth Respondent had filed all the correspondence between the Union of India. State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and also the Corporation of Chennai. and has proved before this Court that he has complied with all the formalities, and a gift of certain extent of property has been made in favour of the Government, and the Corporation has also taken possession of the same. I have also found in that case that the objection regarding environmental aspect was only raised by the Corporation only as a doubt, and in fact. that was also without any basis, and I have directed the Corporation to issue the licence without any further delay, holding that the Sixth Respondent herein has complied with all the legal formalities and has also produced No Objection Certificates from various Authorities. That Writ Petition, namely, W.P. 14823 97 was heard on 30.09.1997, and it was posted for Orders today. On 01.10.1997, a representation was made by the Writ Petitioner in this case even before the filing of the present Writ Petition that he is interested in representing the matter. But since he was not a party to W.P. No. 14823/97, he was not heard. To-day. when the Writ Petition (W.P. No. 14823/97) filed by the Sixth Respondent herein came up for Orders, this Writ Petition came for admission. The objection raised by the Corporation has been met by the Sixth Respondent by giving necessary details. Since I have disposed of the other Writ Petition by giving necessary direction to the Corporation of Chennai, the Respondent therein, I do not think anything survives in this Writ Petition. Hence this Writ Petition is dismissed. Copy of my Order in W.P. No. 14823/97 passed today, shall form part of this Order. W.M.P. No. 24584/97 for interim injunction is also dismissed consequently. 2.11.2001/W.A. Nos. l291& 1663 of 1997 etc.
JUDGMENT
K. Narayana Kurup, J.—Dr. M.A.M. Ramasamy, his brother''s wife Mrs. Meena Muthiah and her adopted son Mr. Annamalai Muthiah (hereinafter referred to as ''the builder'') had submitted an application to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ''C.M.D.A.") on 27.4.1995 to put up a construction of seven blocks of multi-storeyed buildings, consisting of basement, ground floor and nine floors upon the lands owned by them, comprised in S. Nos. 4288/2 and 4288/14, situate in Santhome Village, Chennai 600 028. The total extent of the said lands where proposed construction was to be put up comes to 88 grounds. The construction had to be completed after complying with all the requirements prescribed by the C.M.D.A. under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and the Development Control Rules framed thereunder, besides scrupulously adhering to the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Notifications issued under it. On receipt of the aforesaid application, the C.M.D.A. in turn, as the construction was of a multi-storeyed residential complex, required other authorities, namely, the Director of Fire Services, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred to as ''C.M.W.S.S.B.) and Chief Engineer, Corporation of Chennai to give their no objection (N.O.C.) for further processing the Planning Permission application after considering the permissibility of the building from the point of view and guidelines prescribed by the said authorities. Few months after the receipt of the aforesaid application the C.M.D.A., by its letter dated 1.11.1995. informed the builder that the Planning Permission application is being scrutinised and that the builder should remit a sum of Rs. 2,02,000/- towards development charges and a further a sum of Rs. 71,40,000/- towards security deposit, securing the interests of C.M.D.A. and ensuring that no deviations are made to the sanctioned plan. Thereafter, the C.M.W.S.S.B., in its turn, has requested the builder to remit a sum of Rs. 7,27,270/- towards infrastructural development charges, so that, it would be in a position to provide water and sewerage facilities by creating necessary infrastructure for the proposed construction, as borne out by the letter dated 15.6.1996. Since the construction was for the purpose of putting up multi-storeyed building in accordance with the regulations of C.M.D.A., the applicant for Planning Permission should either pay a compensatory'' payment called as "open space reservation charges" or in the alternative, agree to gift a proportionate extent of land equivalent to the value of "open space reservation charges" in favour of the Corporation of Chennai. The builder complied with all the demands made by the C.M.D.A., and other authorities, by remitting the development charges, security deposit, etc., as borne out by the letter dated 2.11.1995. The builder also executed gift deed dated 14.12.1995 in favour of the Corporation of Chennai of an extent of 2,321 sq.m. of land in lieu of compensatory payment called as "open space reservation charges" for the purpose of grant of Planning Permission as stipulated by the C.M.D.A. and also the Building Permit by the Corporation of Chennai, By letter dated 6.1.1996, the Corporation of Chennai informed the builder that the registered gift deed (vide. Doc. No. 3175/95, dated 29.12.1995) has been accepted by the Special Officer (Council) (vide Resolution No. 1/96, dated 5.1.1996) and it was requested that the builder should fence the open space reserved area and provide a gate from the public road for safety and further maintenance and inform the office for the purpose of physical take over. The builder complied with the same and physically handed over possession of the land to the Corporation of Chennai on 11.1.1996, duly obtaining acknowledgement. Earlier, the Director of Fire Services, by his communication dated 26.5.1995, informed the builder that an inspection would be conducted for consideration of the grant of N.O.C. by the officials of the Fire Service Department on 31.5.1995. After the inspection was carried out, by communication dated 29.6.1995, the Director of Fire Services granted N.O.C. from his side for according Planning Permission to the proposal submitted by the builder. The builder also received N.O.C. from the Department of Telecom, as borne out by the letter issued by the Divisional Engineer (Telecom). Dated 27.11.1995. The Airport Authority of India also granted its N.O.C. to the builder for the proposed construction, by its communication dated 12.1.1996. The Ministry of Communications of the Government of India. Monitoring Organisation also gave its N.O.C. for the proposed construction on 19.1.1996, which was followed by a communication from the Director General of All India Radio (A.I.R.) on 30.5.1996. On the basis of the materials thus furnished "by the builder, the Expert Panel of the C.M.D.A. considered the case of the builder, which also included the report of the Corporation of Chennai and the Government of Tamil Nadu was accordingly addressed by the C.M.D.A. that the proposal of the builder had been examined and placed before the Panel Meeting of the C.M.D.A., which after due deliberations, had recommended issuance of Planning Permission on certain terms and conditions. The C.M.D.A. had made it clear that the builder had complied with all the conditions imposed and requested the Government of Tamil Nadu to consider all the relevant facts and for approval of the decision of the Panel and its recommendations. The Government of Tamil Nadu, granted its approval, subject to the condition that the builder obtained N.O.C. from the Madras Regional Advisory Committee and the Civil Aviation Department as a pre-condition for issue of Planning Permission and also subject to fulfillment of the conditions imposed by the Director of Fire Services and Metro Water, all of which have already been fulfilled by the builder. Since the Planning Permission was still not received, the builder wrote to the C.M.D.A. on 27.6.1996 and requested sanction of the plan and also sent a copy of the sketch and original letter, and requested the sanction to be sent to the Corporation of Chennai under advice to the builder for necessary action. The C.M.D.A. responded the builder by granting its Planning Permission, as per its letter dated 20.7.1996. The Planning Permission granted by the C.M.D.A. was for a period of three years from 20.7.1996 to 19.7.1999. In the light of the above facts and when the C.M.D.A. has granted the Planning Permission after taking note of clearance from all authorities, the Corporation of Chennai was bound to grant the Building permit to the builder and there was nothing else required by the Corporation as it is very much party at all relevant point of time and it was effectively consulted in the matter of grant of Planning Permission by the C.M.D.A. The Corporation of Chennai informed the builder by its communication dated 7.8.1996 to furnish certain particulars for consideration of the grant of Building Permit by them. The builder complied with all the request made by the Corporation and furnished necessary clarifications. However, it transpired that immediately after the C.M.D.A. had granted Planning Permission, the Corporation of Chennai informed the C.M.D.A. that it appeared prima facie that the builder''s site may be affected by Coastal Regulation Zone prescription( herein water referred to as "C.R.Z.") as the site was very close to Adyar river. According to the builder, the aforesaid objection was without any substance, because there are several residential buildings, which have come up in the vicinity and several other buildings are in the process of construction after obtaining necessary Planning Permission and permit. In any case, the builder provided necessary clarifications to the Corporation by letter dated 2.4.1997. by which, the Corporation was informed that the site where the construction to be put up was 720 meters away from the High Tide Line (hereinafter referred to as "H.T.L.") of the Bay of Bengal, for which, sufficient proof had been submitted and this distance was measured and surveyed by the Indian Institute of Technology (hereinafter referred to as ''I.I.T.''), Madras. The builder also invited the attention of the Corporation to the norms for regulation of activities under the C.R.Z. and particularly inviting the attention to Regulation 6(2) of C.R.Z.-II, which prohibits the construction on the seaward side only while permitting construction on the landward side of the existing and proposed roads, subject to the existing local Town and Country Planning Regulations. The builder also specifically pointed out that there was an existing road between Adyar river and the construction site and that since the prohibition was only on the seaward side and the proposed construction was admittedly on the landward side, there could be absolutely no prohibition for the construction of the building, provided the builder complied with the requirements, of the local Town and Country Planning Act. namely the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. The builder further pointed out that as per the C.R.Z. Regulations, the construction cannot be objected to at all. because, even between Adyar Creek/river and the proposed construction, there was a public road proposed as per the master plan and it was well recognised that whenever there was a public road between creek and the building, there cannot be any objection for any construction activity. In any event, the construction activity in question was situate beyond 720 meters from the H.T.L. and as such, not hit by the prohibited distance. All these aspects had been examined by the appropriate authorities and much water had flown with the builder having even executed the gift deed in favour of the Corporation, and such being the position, there was no reason why the Corporation should withhold the grant of permit when the appropriate planning authority, namely, C.M.D.A. had granted Planning Permission to the builder in consultation with all expert bodies as mentioned above. with the active participation of the Corporation through its senior officials, and which itself was benefited by the donation of a substantial chunk of land for public purpose, which was acted upon by the Corporation. The builder sent several letters to the Corporation, requesting to forthwith grant Building Permit in the light of the facts mentioned above. Since the Corporation has not come forward to grant the permission, the builder was driven to this Court in W.P. No. 14823 of 1997 with the following prayer, namely: -
"to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to forthwith grant building permit to the petitioner in respect of the construction undertaken in S. No. 4288/2 and 4288/14 in Santhome Village, Chennai 600 028, in the light of the Planning Permission granted by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority in its Planning Permission No. C3/14876/96, dated 20.7.1996 and pursuant to the gift deed executed in favour of the Corporation of Chennai by the petitioner as condition precedent for the grant of Planning Permission which was duly accepted and acted upon by the respondent and pass such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
In the said writ petition, the Corporation filed a counter affidavit submitting that "on receipt of the reply from C.M.D.A., this respondent will issue necessary Building Permit immediately, after satisfying with the provisions of Coastal Regulation Rules.� On a consideration of the rival contentions and pleadings, learned single Judge, by order dated 14.10.1997, allowed the writ petition directing the Corporation of Chennai to consider the builder''s application for Building Permit and pass final order on the same within ten days from the date of the order. While allowing the writ petition as above, the learned single Judge has found that since the builder has satisfied all the statutory requirements and the Planning Permission has also been granted by the C.M.D.A. only after inspection, it must be presumed that the permission granted by it is in accordance with law. Based on the aforesaid order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 14823 of 1997, the Corporation of Chennai proceeded to grant Building permit as well on 17.10.1997. However, aggrieved by the order in the said writ petition, the appellant, viz., "Citizen, Consumer and Civic Action Group" had sought leave of a Division Bench of this Court to file a writ appeal in public interest against the aforesaid order of the learned single Judge and the said appeal was numbered as W.A. No. 1663 of 1997 after grant of leave.
The appellant in W.A. No. 1663 of 1997, namely, Citizen, Consumer and Civil Action Group, after the conclusion of arguments in W.P. No. 14823 of 1997. had also filed W.P. No. 15471 of 1997 before this Court seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents (Government of India, Government of Tamil Nadu, C.M.D.A., Corporation of Chennai, etc.,) to demolish the construction put up by the builder adjoining the Adyar estuary and restoring the lands to their original character. acquiring them under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 and the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 with a view to develop the Adyar creek and estuary as a sanctuary or as a national park and consequently direct the respondents herein to forbear from permitting any development or construction on the said area (?). W.P. No. 15417 of 1997 came up for admission on 14.10.1997 on which date W.P. No. 14823 of 1997 filed by the builders for orders before this Court. Learned single Judge having regard to the fact that W.P. No. 14823 of 1997 was disposed of by giving necessary directions to the Corporation of Chennai, felt that nothing survives for consideration in W.P. No. 154714 of 1997 and in that view dismissed the same by order dated 14.10.1997. W.A. No. 1291 of 1997 is directed against that order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 15471 of 1997.
During the pendency of the writ appeals, namely, W.A. Nos. 1291 and 1663 of 1997, the appellant, namely, "Citizen, Consumer and Civil Action Group" further filed W.P. No. 8030 of 2000 (which being a public interest litigation matter, came up before the Division Bench) seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents therein, viz., Union of India, "State of Tamil Nadu, Corporation of Chennai, etc., "to stop road construction and the land reclamation activities in the areas adjoining Adyar creek and restore the land to its original character."
Both the writ appeals, namely W.A. No. 1291 and 1663 of 1997 and W.P. No. 8030 of 2000 are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.
In sum and substance, the point that arises for consideration in these writ appeals and the writ petition in W.P. No. 8030 of 2000 is whether the builder is entitled to the grant of Building permit by the Corporation of Chennai as prayed for. The fact that the builder obtained N.O.C. from all the authorities concerned is not in dispute. Hence, that is not a point in issue to be decided here. Accordingly, all that we have to see is whether the construction activity in question is hit by the provisions of the Notification issued u/s 3(1) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Rules framed thereunder, declaring the coastal stretches as Coastal Regulation Zone (C.R.Z.) and regulating activities in the C.R.Z. being within the prohibited distance of Adyar river. Any doubt on this score stands dispelled by the survey conducted by I.I.T., Madras based on aerial survey and maps available. The summary and conclusion of the report of the Ocean Engineering Centre of the I.I.T.. Madras touching on this aspect of the matter is as follows:
"The distance from the High Tide Line (taking maximum tidal range of 1.0 m off Madras) upto the existing road between Adyar river and Rani Meyyammai tower is 720 m. The distances from the High Tide Line to the other selected areas adjoining RM towers are indicated in the drawing enclosed.
As stated earlier, the measurements have indicated clearly that the site (Rani Meyyammai Towers) is found to be about 720 m from the High Tide Line which is more than the prescribed 500 m from High Tide Line as cited by Ministry of Environment and Forest."
The aforesaid report of the I.I.T. establishes beyond doubt that the construction activity is beyond the prohibited distance as envisaged under the C.R.Z. Notification. In this context, we may observe that the H.T.L. itself had been demarcated only long after grant of Planning Permission to the builder by the C.M.D.A. and long after the filing of the writ appeals. Even the Coastal Zone Management Plan for the State of Tamil Nadu was approved, subject to certain conditions only in September. 1996. after the grant of Planning Permission. It was also brought to our notice that several individuals have been granted Planning Permission by the V and Building Permit by the Corporation of Chennai to construct buildings in the area and it is also evident from the pleadings that even in the very same area, planning Permissions and Building Permits have been granted prior to the finalisation of the Coastal Zone management Plan. When the authority concerned, namely the C.M.D.A. has granted the Planning Permission and when several labyrinthine formalities have been completed, we wonder how Building Permit can be declined by the Corporation of Chennai in the case of this builder, unless there are compelling reasons justifying the denial of building permit We find no such reason, much less compelling reason justifying the denial of building Permit in the instant case. It is not open for the Corporation of Chennai to turn round and contend that the proceedings for grant of Planning permission were finalised behind their back. In respect of grant of approval for multi-storeyed buildings, a panel has been constituted by the C.M.D.A., which also includes the representatives of the Corporation of Chennai and it was that panel which recommended and approved the builder''s proposal and it was based on that recommendation, the builder complied with various conditions by obtaining necessary approval from various authorities and also agreeing to the gift of the portion of the land to the Corporation of Chennai. The Corporation of Chennai having been very much party to the grant of Planning Permission by the C.M.D.A. and after having insisted and accepted the vast extent of land to be gifted from the builder and taking possession of the said land so gifted for the public purpose in consideration of the grant of Planning Permission by the C.M.D.A., cannot go behind its own decision and put the builder to prejudice by withholding Building Permit notwithstanding the grant of Planning Permission by the C.M.D.A. In such a case, we are of opinion that the Corporation of Chennai is bound to grant Building Permit simultaneously or immediately after the C.M.D.A. grants Planning Permission under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and the Development Control Rules. In this view of the matter, the action of the Corporation of Chennai in denying the Building Permit to the builder is patently unreasonable and arbitrary and would be ultra-vires of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and the Development Control Rules, militating against the very scheme of the said Act. besides being discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The fact that the construction activity is beyond 500 metres from the H.T.L. has also been conclusively reaffirmed by the Tamil Nadu State Coastal Zone Management Authority (constituted u/s 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act which was suo motu impleaded by us as additional 7th respondent as per order dated 20.4.2001 in W.A. No. 1291 of 1997, wherein, we have made the following reference to the said additional 7th respondent:-
"(i) to determine and verify whether the construction site in question falls within the Coastal Regulation Zone (tidal action).
(ii) If the answer to (i) is yes. the distance at which the construction site is situated from the High Tide Line (H.T.L.) of the Bay of Bengal.
(iii) The distance of which the construction site is situated from the Adyar river (H.T.L.)."
In response to our reference, the additional 7th respondent, namely, the Tamil Nadu State Coastal Zone Management Authority along with the officials of C.M.D.A. and Corporation of Chennai, inspected the area adjoining the construction site in S. Nos. 4288/2 and 4288/14 of Mylapore Division in Mylapo re-Tripliecane Taluk, Chennai on 22.6.2001 and submitted the following reply to the queries referred to by us in W.A. No. 1291 of 1997:-
"(i) Construction site in question falls within the Coastal Regulation Zone (C.R.Z.) as it is located adjacent to tidal influenced water body, viz. Adyar creek. As the area falls in Chennai city, it is categorised as C.R.Z.-II.
(ii) The distance from the H.T.L. of Bay of Bengal to the building is more than 500 m as below:-
(a) The distance from the H.T.L. mark C. N.21 (farthest from construction site) is 589.0 m.
(b) The distance from H.T.L. mark C.N. 20 (nearer to the construction site) is 509.0 m.
(iii) The distance from the H.T.L. of Adyar river to the construction is 9.6 m."
With regard to the third query, it is further mentioned that the multi-storeyed building under construction falls under C.R.Z. as it is located 9.6 m distance (i.e. well within 100 m) from the Adyar creek. It is also stated that there is an earthen road to the width of 5.60 metres, separating the compound wall of the building and the Adyar creek. As per the C.R.Z. Notification 1991, in C.R.Z.-II areas, construction of building is permissible only on the landward side of the road/authorised structures. It was also informed that the said road between Adyar river and the construction site is the subject matter in W.P. No. 8030 of 2000 before this Court. Therefore, the report of the expert body like I.I.T. and the Tamil Nadu State Coastal Zonal Management Authority demolishes the substratum of the case set up by the appellant that the construction activity is being carried on within the prohibited distance of Adyar river. The report of the expert body establishes beyond doubt the fact that the construction site is located well beyond 500 metres of H.T.L., namely, 589 metres from the construction site to H.T.L., namely upto Bay of Bengal, and the distance from the H.T.L. mark C.N.20 (nearer to the construction site is 509 metres. It has also been found that the construction has been put in C.R.Z.-II area where the construction is permissible on the landward side of the road/authorised construction and that it was found that there is earthen road to a width of 5.60 metres separating the compound wall of the building in question and the Adyar creek, as already noticed. The existence of the road is also certified by the competent authority, namely, the Tahsildar of Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk, as per his letter dated 7.5.1997 (vide page 57 of the typed set of papers in W.A. No. 1291 of 1997). The existence of the road having been confirmed by the competent authorities, it is not for this Court to make a roving enquiry on the same in the present proceedings. In our considered opinion, there is no reason to doubt the bona fides of the report of the competent authorities including that of the Tahsildar regarding the existence of the road. None of the respondents including the State of Tamil Nadu nor the C.M.D.A. nor the Corporation of Chennai have disputed the existence of the road in question. The letter of the Tahsildar dated 7.5.1997 establishes the fact that the said road has been used as a public passage for several year prior to the coming into force of C.R.Z. Notification of the year 1991. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding unequivocally that there is a road in existence separating the compound wall of the building in question and the Adyar creek. In this connection, our attention was drawn to a Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A. No. 1287 of 1995 rendered by M. Srinivasan, and S.S. Subramani, JJ. (as their Lordships then were), in which, it has been categorically held that the construction of the building can be permitted on the landward side of an existing road and of an existing structure. Further, this Court held that it has necessarily to look into the intent behind the C.R.Z. Notification, whether the area is a developed one with all infrastructural facilities and when already buildings have sprung up, the interference of the Court is not called for. As a matter of fact, it is pointed out that the area where the construction activity has taken place, is booming with developmental activities and several constructions have taken place therein in the form of construction of residential quarters for Ministers and other Government officials, including the construction of residential quarters for the members of the Legislative Assembly, etc. We are told that already the Government have granted an extent of 45.45 acres of land situate in Adyar creek area to be converted as Ambedkar Memorial. The position of the builder is better insofar as it does not form part of the creek, as borne out by the records, but is an independent patta land situate at a high level beyond the prohibited distance and separated by a road, as already noticed. The challenge against the aforesaid judgment, namely, judgment in W.A. No. 1287 of 1995 was unsuccessful before the Apex Court. That apart, the said Division Bench Judgement has been confirmed subsequently by another Division Bench of this Court comprising M.S. Liberhan, C.J., and D. Raju, J. in W.P. No. 1569 of 1997 dated 4.9.1997. In the later judgment, this Court found that under the Coastal Zone Management Plan for Chennai Metropolitan area, which was approved on 27.9.1996, the entire coastal stretch from Ennore to Thiruvanmiyur has been classified as C.R.Z.-II, which bring within its fold even areas on the outskirts of Chennai. This Court again emphasised that construction could be permitted in developed area as per C.R.Z. prescriptions. There could be no controversy that the area in question is a developed area. Since it belongs to C.R.Z.-II classification and since the activity is beyond the prohibited distance and is separated by a road, as already noticed, we have no doubt in our mind that the construction activity is permissible in the eye of law and none of the objections raised by the appellant against the aforesaid construction is liable to be countenanced.
Of course, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the proposed building is within the prohibited distance and as such, the construction is illegal and objectionable. He also questions the very existence of the road. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the aforesaid contention, we are afraid, we cannot give our stamp of approval to the same. In this connection, we have to take note of the fact that the entire question has been examined by two expert bodies including the Expert Committee constituted under the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986. namely, the Tamil Nadu State Coastal Zone Management Authority, who have categorically stated that the construction in question is beyond 500 metres from the H.T.L., in which case the construction will be perfectly legal. Being an expert body, it can be presumed to know the nature and character of the problem it has to tackle and the decision arrived at by such a body is not liable to be casually interfered with by this Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless a patent error was point out. No such error could be suggested by the appellant. Besides, in matters of this nature, it may not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction for this Court to substitute its own judgment to that of an expert body, particularly, in the highly technical field, demanding scientific skill and expertise. The scope of enquiry by this Court is extremely limited. At this juncture, we may hasten to add that the findings arrived at by the expert body are not liable to be impeached by this Court at the drop of the hat, since this Court is not expected to sit in judgment over the reports of the expert bodies, particularly in the light of the fact that those are all facts which are not within the realm of judicially manageable standards. Accordingly, we repel the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant and accept the report of the expert bodies and hold that the construction in question is beyond 500 metres from H.T.L. and not hit by C.R.Z. Regulations or Notification. The same analogy will apply to the argument of learned counsel for the appellant against the existence of the road, which has been duly found to be in existence by the letter of the Tahsildar, as already noticed, which also is not liable to be impeached in these proceedings.
That apart, in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, it will be preposterous for this Court to give a finding as to the non-existence of a road, which will have serious civil consequences, particularly, when no statutory authority has chosen to question the grant of Planning Permission on the ground of non-existence of the road by disbelieving the letter of the Tahsildar.
Yet another fact which militates against any relief being granted to the appellant is the inordinate delay and laches on the part of the appellant in invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. In W.A. No. 1287 of 1995 (noted supra), it is pertinent to note that even though only a minimum extent of construction was completed, the Division Bench of this Court has rendered a finding that the appellants therein are guilty of laches. When SLP (S.L.P.) was filed before the Supreme Court, the same was also dismissed. As regards the present case, it is not disputed that the construction has reached a considerable extent even on the date on which the appellant has chosen to approach this Court. The appellant is aware of the construction activities taking place during September 1995 and the appellant had chosen to move this Court by way of filing a writ petition more than a year after the construction had commenced. As such, we have no hesitation in holding that the appellant is guilty of laches.
Of course, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the construction was commenced by the builder notwithstanding the condition in the Planning Permission that it should be commenced only after obtaining the Building permit from the Corporation of Chennai. The said contention was rejected even by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 14823 of 1997. In this context, we find that the Planning Permission granted by the C.M.D.A. was to be effective for a period of three years under the provisions of Sections 49 and 50 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. Further, the Corporation itself had been a party to the decision making process of the C.M.D.A. in the grant of Planning Permission with its Chief Engineer having been a member of the Multi-storey Building Panel constituted under the Development Control Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. It was the Chief Engineer of the Corporation of Chennai who had found that the plan could be approved and the Planning Permission was accordingly granted finally by the C.M.D.A., that too. after confirming that the land to an extent of 2,321 sq. M. have been gifted to the Corporation of Chennai to be utilised as "Open space reservation area" and the Corporation confirming the taking possession of the lands in January 1996. Therefore, we find no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard and reject the same as has been rightly done by the learned single Judge.
Towards the fag end of the hearing, the appellant filed W.M.P. No. 25836 of 2001 for a direction to the Director, National Remote Sensing Agency, Balan Nagar, Hyderabad to submit a report of the existence of road/path prior to 1991 with reference to the maps produced by the appellant. For the said purpose, the appellant simply obtained a satellite map dated 7.9.1991 and also a map dated 21.4.1994 in addition to a spot map of the year 1989. The said direction petition was opposed by the builder, and in our opinion, rightly so, stating that the attempt of the appellant is only to have a roving enquiry in the matter. Once the existence of the road is categorically established by the letter of the Tahsildar and the same is not disputed by the various authorities, where is the question of the matter being reagitated over again by the aid of a satellite photograph? In the light of the various facts with regard to the existence of the road, which is on record, and which has not been impeached or questioned by any of the statutory authorities, the attempt of the appellant to establish the non-existence of the road at this belated stage is highly misconceived and is an abuse of process of Court. We had occasion to see the satellite map produced by the appellant and on a peninsula of the map, even the major roads in the City of Chennai are not visible in the said map. On mere assumptions, the appellant cannot, at this belated stage, seek to raise wholly irrelevant issues and question the existence of the road through these proceedings. A similar belated attempt was also turned down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Goa Foundation, Goa v. Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 2001 SC 184) (Paragraph 11), wherein, the Apex Court had held that the appellants therein had utterly failed to establish by referring to any authenticated material that there was any infraction of any of the provisions of CR.7. in granting environmental clearance to the project in question in Goa. The position is no less different here. Admittedly, the Planning Permission has already been granted and the construction is nearing completion. Therefore, the appellant without producing any authenticated material, cannot seek the indulgence of this Court in this direction petition based on certain bare assumptions. Accordingly, we reject the prayer of the appellant for the direction in W.M.P No. 25836 of 2001 and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Before parting with this judgment. we may observe that while the Courts have social accountability in the matter of protection of environment, there should be a proper balance between the protection of environment and development activities, which are essential for progress. There can be no dispute that the society has to prosper, but it shall not be at the expense of environment. In the like vein, the environment shall have to be protected, but not at the cost of the development of the society. Both the development and environment shall co-exist and go hand-in-hand. Therefore, a balance has to be struck and administrative actions ought to proceed in accordance therewith, and not de-hors the same.
In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find no scope for interference in these writ appeals and the same an accordingly dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the writ appeals based on our findings that the construction activity is perfectly legal and is not hit by the C.R.Z. Regulations, etc., the various relief�s sought for by the petitioner in W.P. No. 8030 of 20000 are not liable to be granted. Accordingly, we dismiss W.P. No. 8030 of 2000. In the result, we confirm the orders of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 14823 of 1987 and W.P. No. 15471 of 1997 and dismiss both the writ appeals, namely, W.A. No. 1663 of 1997 and W.A. No. 1291 of 1997, and the writ petition, namely, W.P. No. 8030 of 2000. No costs. Consequently, CMP. No. 15015 and 15016 of 1997 and 10381 of 2001 and W.M.P. No. 11746 and 12162 of 2000 are closed.