: Pulling up Corporation of Chennai for the 15 years delay in acting on its orders over an application for regularising a building made that year, the Madras High Court directed that its order be complied with.
The First bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M Sathyanarayanan, acting on a contempt petition,directed the petitioner,who is the building owner, to submit a copy of the application, along with proof of service before the present Commissioner within a week from today.
It also directed the Commissioner to inform the owner within seven days if a decision had already been taken and if not, to do so within two weeks as directed in the order.
The bench also directed that an inspection be made of the premises within a week the presence of both parties.
It warned the Corporation Commissioner and Junior Executive Engineer and made them personally responsible to ensure compliance of its February 17 1999 order, where it had directed the 'Appellate Authority' to decide on the application to regularise the building of one P J Syamala.
It warned the officials that any further infraction would be viewed as contempt.
The Feb 17 1999 order of HC was directed to the Appellate Authority to decide on the application, which counsel for Corporation maintained that no such authority exists.
The bench took a serious view of the Corporation not doing anything from 1999 and now informing the court after the contempt was filed that there was no appellate authority.
"If it was so, it was the bounden duty of the Corporation to have obtained a clarification in this behalf when the order was passed. There is no excuse for circumventing the order merely because possibly the description of the authority may not have been correctly recorded in the order."
Flaying the Corporation for its inability to state if any regularization application was filed by the person concerned and if so, what was its fate, the court observed that it appeared that a nebulous stand had deliberately been taken so that the correct picture does not appear before the court.
On the different submissions of Corporation Counsel that a notice had been issued under Section 56 of the Town and country Planning Act to the owner and refuted by counsel for petitioner, it said "We do not know whether deliberately vague notices are sent only to finish off the formality, or rather officers are performing the job of inspection and thereafter issuing notices for any unauthorized construction.
