(Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent culminating in the planning permission dated 03.03.2020 bearing letter number C3 (N) 13358/2016 issued by the 1st respondent for the 3rd respondent’s project in T.S.No.4860, 7025, 7026 and 4861/1, 7036/1 and 2, 7027/1 and 2 in Block No.113 of T.Nagar Village thereby quash the same and direct the 3rd respondent to restore the plots at T.S.No.7036/1, 7036/2, 7027/1, 7027/2, Raman Street, to its original condition.)

1. The petitioner challenges the planning permission issued by the 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent with respect of the property situated in T.S.No.4860, 7025, 7026 and 4861/1, 7036/1 and 2, 7027/1 and 2 in Block No.113 of T.Nagar Village.

2. The petitioner states that the 3rd respondent is running a hotel under the name and style of ‘Residency Towers’ at T.S.No.4861, 7025, 7026, 7028 on Thyagaraya Road. The 3rd respondent subsequently purchased the property at T.S.No.7036/1, 7036/2, 7027/1 and 7027/2 on Raman Street from the erstwhile owners. The petitioner states that, in terms of the Master Plan, Raman Street is a residential area and there are no commercial establishments in the said area. It states as per the Master Plan, Raman Street is classified as a Primary Residential Zone. It is alleged that in utter violation of the zoning regulations, the 1st respondent had permitted the 3rd respondent to construct a hotel with lodging rooms, convention halls, etc., measuring 20,000 Sq.m.

3. The petitioner relies upon Rule 33 of the Tamil Nadu Combined and Development Building Rules, 2019 [hereinafter referred to as 'the TNCDBR'] read with Annexure XVIII. It urges that as Raman Street is a Primary Residential Use Zone; hotels and lodging houses exceeding 500 Sq.m are not permissible. As the 3rd respondent’s construction spread over 20,000 Sq.m, it is a violation of the aforesaid regulations.

4. The petitioner further states that misleading the respondents 1 and 2, the 3rd respondent had shown the properties as one on Thyagaraya Road, when they are, in fact, located on the Raman Street. It adds that Raman Street is an 11 meter wide colony road and it does not permit construction as proposed by the 3rd respondent.

5. The petitioner further submits that if construction as attempted by the 3rd respondent is permitted, builders would purchase properties in residential areas and convert the same for commercial use. Thereby, defeating the very purpose for which zoning regulations are brought forth.

6. The petitioner alleges that from the start of the construction activities from October 2022, the 3rd respondent has been using Raman Street as the entry and exit route for its construction, which has restricted the ingress and egress of the persons residing in Raman Street to their property. Furthermore, as the construction activities are carried on through the night, it results in noise and air pollution, and also cause significant inconvenience to the children who are attending Holy Angel’s Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School, situated at one end of Raman Street.

7. Having obtained building permission for Door No.115, Thyagaraya Road, the 3rd respondent is illegally constructing on the property at Door No.19, Raman Street. The petitioner states that if the construction is permitted, it would lead to over-stressing of traffic and other civic amenities in the area. He states that drainage and water supply lines on Raman Street are not designed to cater to large, multi-storied commercial hotels, like the one proposed by the 3rd respondent. Hence, on the aforesaid grounds, the petitioner seeks the impugned planning permission to be quashed.

8. This Court entertained the writ petition on 10.08.2023. Respondents 1 and 3 have filed their counter affidavits.

9. It is the stand of the 1st respondent that the 3rd respondent applied for planning permission for Group Development with two blocks. It detained permission for Block No.1, at Door No.115, Thyagaraya Road comprised in T.S.No.4860, 7025, 7026, and 4861/1, 7036/1, 2, 7027/1 and 2 in Block No.113 of T.Nagar Village vide in its application dated 24.08.2016. Much earlier, permission had been granted to put-up Double Basement Floor + Ground Floor + 10 Floors vide planning permit dated 25.10.1999. Subsequently, planning permission was issued on 26.11.2002 to put-up additional construction of the 11th and 12th Floor over the previously approved structure. It is stated that the proposal was placed before the 238th Multi-Storied Building (MSB) Panel meeting and on the basis of the Panel’s recommendations, the proposals were forwarded to the Government. This was by the order date of 10.01.2018.

10. The Government accorded approval to the proposals on 23.04.2018 for development of this area and also granted relaxation from Development Regulation No.28(2)G relating to the short fall of the set-back of all around, with a condition that the applicant will give an undertaking that it will pay the fee prescribed by the Government/Chennai Metropolitan Development (CMDA) in terms of Regulation 35 of the Second Master Plan for Chennai Metropolitan Area, 2026. The MSB Panel also imposed the following conditions:

                     (1)To obtain revised plan rectifying the drafting errors/corrections and particulars in the Annexure attached to the Agenda item No.18/238 before issuing DC advice;

                     (2)To obtain NOC from DF and RS before issue of DC advice.

                     (3)To obtain NOC's from IAF and AAI before issuing Planning Permission.

                     (4) Environmental Clearance must be obtained before commencing the construction proposed and an undertaking must be obtained from the applicant in this regard that construction will be commenced only after obtaining Environmental Clearance.

                     (5)To obtain the details of OSR charges, Regularisation charges and Security Deposit paid for the earlier two approvals before issuing Planning Permission.

                     (6)To obtain an undertaking from the applicant that the appeal preferred by them before the Government against the rejection of regularization application under section 113A(6) of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 to be withdrawn before issuance of Planning Permission.

                     (7)To obtain an undertaking from the applicant that the connectivity between 2 blocks must be provided at least in the basement floors and the corridor width requirement must be complied before issue in planning permission.

11. It is stated that the 3rd respondent has complied with all conditions and also paid all the relevant charges. Insofar as the Zoning Regulations are concerned, the 1st respondent states that the site partly lies within a Residential Zone and partly within a Mixed Residential Zone.

12. Referring to Rule 16(6) of the TNCDBR, it is urged that sites abutting and gaining access from roads with a width of 18 meters and above are deemed to be in a Commercial Use Zone. The 1st respondent asserts that as the width of the Thyagaraya Road is 31.95 meters, the site in reference is deemed to be a Commercial Use Zone. The counter affidavit further states that the proposal was placed before the Special Sanction Committee, which in its meeting held on 12.12.2017, recommended to permit the proposed activity in the site under ‘Special Sanction’ category. Hence, the 1st respondent states that the violation of zoning regulation does not arise.

13. The counter affidavit states that on the southern side of the site, Thyagaraya Road, is to an extent of 31.95 meters; on the eastern side, North Boag Road, is to an extent of 15.20 meters; on the northern side, Raman Street is to an extent of 11.80 meters; and that the qualifying road width of 18 meters is available to a length of 500 meters. Hence, it rejects the contention of the petitioner that the site does not abut Thyagaraya Road.

14. Furthermore, it is stated that a ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) was obtained from the Police for the proposed construction on 30.11.2018. Insofar as the plea on illegal parking of the vehicles, noise, and air pollution are concerned, the 1st respondent states, in case, the petitioner approaches the appropriate authorities, their grievances would be addressed. It has added that, till date, no complaints have been received by the 1st respondent, either from the petitioner or from any other resident in the area. Hence, on these grounds, it is pleaded that the writ petition be dismissed.

15. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that since the petitioner has an adequate alternate remedy under Section 79 of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, this writ petition is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that the writ petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches. The planning permission was granted in March 2020, whereas, the writ petition itself was came to be filed in July 2023, after a delay of three years. Referring to the averments in the affidavit that the construction commenced in October 2022, the 3rd respondent asserts that the petitioner was aware that the construction has been going on over a year, but has approached the Court only with delay. Thus, the writ petition suffers from the aforesaid vices.

16. It pleads that all the aforesaid survey numbers are in one block and that they are incapable of division or fragmentation. It states that in terms of the Detailed Development Plan, Town Survey No.4860, 7025 and 7026 have been classified as ‘Mixed Residential Zone’ and the lands in T.S.No.4861/1, 7036/1, 2 and 7027/1, 2 have been classified as ‘Primary Residential Zone’. Over a period of time, all these lands had been reconstituted and they now form a part of a single site bearing road No.115, Thyagaraya Road, T-Nagar, Chennai 17. It is urged that the site has three roads abutting it mainly, Thyagaraya Road, North Boag Road and Raman Street.

17. It is pleaded that applications were filed for grant of permission as early as in 1999. Pursuant to the planning permission, a five-star hotel was putup under the name and style of “The Residency Towers”, and has been in operation since 2003. The 3rd respondent was desirous of putting up additional construction for expansion/creation of additional banqueting facilities for its existing hotel. Hence, the 3rd respondent submitted an application for obtaining planning permit. The additional construction is for 3867.65 Sq.m together with car park and not 20,000 Sq.m as alleged by the petitioner.

18. The counter affidavit further states that the proposal of the 3rd respondent was placed before the Special Sanction Committee and in its meting held on 12.12.2017, and it had approved the same. Thereafter, the recommendation was forwarded to the MSB Panel and on its approval, ultimately to the State Government.

19. Insofar as the TNCDBR is concerned, the 3rd respondent states that it chose to abide by the earlier regime rather than the 2019 Regulations.

20. The 3rd respondent states that in terms of Rules 6(7) for the Development Control Regulations, sites abutting or gaining access from roads of width of 12 meters and above, but less than 18 meters are deemed to be Mixed Residential Zone. As per these Regulations, with a special sanction of the authority, the activities, as proposed, could be carried on. Since the recommendation of the Special Sanction Committee was accorded on 12.12.2017 and later by the MSB Panel and the State Government, the 3rd respondent states the construction is perfectly in accordance with law. The 3rd respondent denies that it has mis-represented that Raman Street is 12 meters street, since the 3rd respondent at all points of time had only shown Door No.115, Thyagaraya Road as access for all the aforesaid survey numbers.

21. It states that the entry and access to the entire site is from Thyagaraya Road, which has a width of more than 30 meters. Since the 3rd respondent is operating a five-star hotel, it decided to provide multiple entry and exit points for smooth flow of traffic and to avoid traffic congestion. One such entry abuts the Raman Street.

22. The 3rd respondent denies that its construction had or is causing nuisance. It states that, in terms of prevailing regulations, concreting work is restricted to night hours. In order to comply with the said regulations, concreting activities alone are being carried out at night hours, without causing any hindrance or nuisance to the neighbours. On these pleas, the 3rd respondent seeks the dismissal of the writ petition.

23. I heard Mr.M.Yogeshwaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Akhil Akber Ali, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent Mr.E.C.Ramesh, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Rahul Balaji, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

24. Since the 3rd respondent has raised a plea of alternate remedy as well as delay and laches, I will deal with those issues first and thereafter go into the merits of the case.

25. The core issue that has been presented in this case is one of jurisdiction, as well as, which of the following regulations, TNCDBR, 2019 or the Development Control Regulation (DCR) applies. The petitioner has alleged that CMDA, by granting approval to the construction, has done so without jurisdiction. Under such circumstances, pushing the petitioner to an alternate remedy before the Government would not be conducive.

26. The Supreme Court in M/s.Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh(AIR 2021 SC 2114), has held that the principle of alternate remedy is a discretionary one and is not an absolute bar for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Justice Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud (as he then was) held that, where an order or proceeding is challenged as one devoid of jurisdiction, a High Court can entertain a writ petition. He has further pointed that if a challenge involves a pure question of law, such as the authority of the body that passed the order, even then, a writ petition would be tenable.

27. When the Supreme Court has spoken in such clear terms, I am not inclined to dismiss the writ petition on the grounds of an alternate remedy. More so, when the approval challenged in this case, had been dealt with by the Government earlier, to push the petitioner to avail such a remedy, is to call upon him to appeal from Caesar to Caesar.

28. Apart from the above, I should point out that it has been a practice of this Court not to dismiss writ petitions at the stage of final disposal on the ground of availability of an alternate remedy. This writ petition had been pending before this Court for a period of two years. In fact, pending the writ petition, an Inspection Committee was constituted by this Court and directed to inspect and submit a report. All the parties had participated during the course of such inspections. Hence, the plea of alternate remedy stands rejected.

29. The plea of delay and laches need not detain us for long. Delay and laches typically arise, when a person, who approaches the Court, has slept over his or her rights for a long time. Courts dismiss writ petitions invoking delay and laches, when a party approaches the Court after a significant lapse of time without any satisfactory explanation, or when third party rights have accrued prior to the challenge. Yet, if a construction is made in an illegal or improper manner, the injury is a continuous one and therefore, delay alone cannot be a ground for the rejection of the claim. Here is a case, where the petitioner could not have been aware of the proceedings that have taken inter se between the respondents. It is not the case of the 3rd respondent that the building approval was granted, after serving due notice to the writ petitioner and other residents of the area.

30. The petitioner is no magician or soothsayer to be aware of the impugned proceedings the minute they were passed. He would have come to know only when the construction had commenced. Soon thereafter, he has approached the Court. Hence, I am not willing to throw out the petition on these two grounds. Therefore, I will proceed to analyse the writ petition on its merits.

31. The first issue that has to be considered is whether the TNCDBR, 2019 would be applicable to the construction in issue. TNCDBR was notified by the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department of the State of Tamil Nadu on 04.02.2019. Though Mr.M.Yogeshwaran refers to several provisions of this Regulation, Mr.Sathish Parasaran submitted that this Regulation would not be applicable to the 3rd respondent. He places reliance upon Regulation 73, which reads as follows:

                     “73. Transitory Provisions:

                     (1) …….

                     (2) ……..

                     (3) Applications under scrutiny stage in which the demand letter is yet to be sent will be examined either in the old rules or in the new rules as per the options of the applicants.

                     (4) ……..”

32. A perusal of Regulation 73(3) shows that an application for which demand letter has already been sent prior to the notification will be processed only as per the old Rules, and if an application is under scrutiny and the demand letter is yet to be sent, even then, the application would be examined either under the old Rules or the New Rules at the option of the person seeking to develop the property. In the facts of the present case, the 3rd respondent having opted for his application to be considered under the Old Regulations, the reliance placed upon by Mr.M.Yogeshwaran on the 2019 Rules is misplaced. The applicable Regulation to the 3rd respondent's development is as per Second Master Plan for Chennai Metropolitan Area, 2026.

33. Let us now see the relevant provisions of the DCR. As per Regulations 6 (7) and (8), which reads as follows:

                     “6(7) In area designated for Primary Residential Use in Master Plan/Detailed Development Plan, (to be read with sub regulation (5) above), sites abutting and gaining access from roads of width 12 m and above, but less than 18m are deemed to have been zoned for mixed residential use zone.

                     6(8) In areas designated for Primary Residential and/or Mixed Residential Use zone in the Master Plan/Detailed Development Plan (to be read with sub regulation 5 above), sites abutting and gaining access from roads of width 18m and above are deemed to have been zoned for commercial use zone.”

34. In the Mixed Residential Use Zone, permissible activities are categorised under Regulation 15. Regulation 15(1) has two categories 15(1)(A) and 15(1)(B).

35. Regulation 15(1)(A)(iv) states that Hotels, Dormitories, Boarding and Lodging houses and Welfare Institutions occupying a floor area not exceeding 500 Sq.m are permissible uses. Admittedly, the proposed construction exceeds 500 Sq.m. According to Regulation 15(1)(B), with the special sanction of the CMDA, all the categories found under 15(1)(A)(i) to (vii) are permitted without restriction on the floor area. Hence, it has to be seen whether the 3rd respondent has secured such a sanction.

36. The minutes of the Special Sanction Committee meeting held on 12.12.2017, a copy of which has been placed in the typed-set of papers, points out that Special Sanction Committee consisting of:

                     (1)Member Secretary, CMDA;

                     (2)Additional Secretary to the Government, Housing and Urban Development Department;

                     (3)Chief Planner, (MSB) and;

                     (4)Chief Planner, Area Plans Unit (APU).

                     had considered the application filed by the 3rd respondent.

37. During the said consideration, the Committee noted that the entire site under reference lies in Mixed Residential and Primary Residential zones, which require Special Sanction from the CMDA for the purpose of commercial use. After considering the application in detail, the Special Sanction Committee passed the following order:



38. After the recommendations of the Special Sanction Committee, the matter was placed before the Government. The Government, by an order dated 23.04.2018, had directed the Member Secretary, CMDA, to take further action for issuance of the planning permission. The Government also directed the CMDA to obtain an undertaking from the applicant that he would fulfill all the provisions under the Development Regulations conditions imposed. It also called upon the CMDA to ensure all the conditions placed by the Director of Fire and Rescue Services are being carried on the proposed multi-storey construction. It was thereafter that building permission was issued by the CMDA on 03.03.2020. Subsequently, building permission had also been accorded by the 2nd respondent on 29.06.2020. This shows in compliance with the Development Control Regulations, the 3rd respondent had obtained the permission from the CMDA and hence, activity under 15(1)(A)(iv) without floor restriction is permissible.

39. Further, insofar as the multi-storey buildings are concerned, Regulation 28(1)(b) fixes the road width. The said provision reads as follows:

                     “Road width:- The site shall either abut on a road not less than 18 metres in width or gain access from public road not less that 18 metres in width through a part of the site which can be treated as an exclusive passage of not less than 18 metres in width.”

40. The plan of the property is scanned and extracted hereunder,



It shows that the property of the 3rd respondent has access from Thyagaraya Road, North Boag Road, as well as Raman Street. The 3rd respondent acquired these properties and has consolidated them much before the grant of the planning permit. If that be the situation, then the properties which are the subject matter of this writ petition, gain access from Thyagaraya Road, which has a width of more than 18 meters.

41. At this stage, I should point out that the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the exemption granted from Regulation 15(1)(A) of the Development Control Regulations by the CMDA in the year 2017 or the subsequent approval of the Government in the year 2018. Since the construction of the 3rd respondent is in compliance with the extant regulation, I am not inclined to grant a relief that the petitioner seeks.

42. For the mere fact that the 3rd respondent’s construction is in accordance with Regulations, this Court cannot be insensitive to the fact that if the entry and exit for the 3rd respondent property is to be from Raman Street, it will result in a traffic congestion as well as causing nuisance to the residents of the said area. Hence, the 3rd respondent shall not use Raman Street as an exit point for all the vehicles, which make an entry from Thyagaraya Road.

43. In light of the above discussion with the aforesaid restriction on the usage of Raman Street, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.