Illegal buildings: CMDA slammed for inaction

The first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M Sundar while perusing statements filed by the CMDA, Corporation and amicus, said “The enormity of the number of cases of violations is astounding showing complete failure of the system, where the persons seems to be making constructions as they like without any fear of consequences.” 

The bench on pointing out that the report of the amicus shows that 65,529 applications have been received for regularisation, said “This itself shows that there is no following up of norms. The status of applications before the CMDA for regularisation under section 113A of Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, shows that only 2 per cent of them have been accepted while 86 per cent have been rejected. This in turn would require a massive action, but the enforcement action has been comparatively sparse, thus, the violators continue to have a sway.” 

Advocate V Suresh, appointed as amicus by the court to assist it, in his report had submitted that in 19 years only 156 demolitions have been carried out by the CMDA, while plan approval is being granted for at least 500 to 600 buildings per year. He also noted that no building was demolished between 2009 and 2015 while in 2016 just two buildings were demolished only to comply with court orders despite 132 buildings were locked and sealed for violations. This, he said clearly revealed that the action taken is not commensurate to the problem at hand. 

“Though there are enforcement mechanisms in place for prevention of illegal constructions and procedures to make officials accountable for lapses in enforcement, they cannot be said to be effective. Therefore, the existing system needs to be looked at comprehensively to see if it can be made effective or if a new system needs to be evolved, Suresh added.

In a bid to check various violations by auto drivers including high fares, the Madras High Court has directed the state to increase the quantum of fine to at least Rs 1,500 even for first-time offence. The first bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M Sathyanarayanan, while dealing with a contempt plea moved by the Coimbatore based Consumer Voice that the eight guidelines offered by this court has not been adhered to, also directed the state to involve responsible persons to control the situation keeping in mind the paucity of policemen. Suggesting appointment of traffic wardens as one of the method to have a tab on the autos, the bench suggested to adopt a methodology, wherein commuters can keep tab on their complaints by SMS. 

‘Can’t prevent official intervention in civic bodies’ financial powers’

The Madras High Court has declined to restrain the authorities from interfering with the financial powers, including the cheque signing authority of the Village Panchayat president and vice president.

The first bench of Madras High Court comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M Sundar, before whom a PIL seeking to forbear authorities from interfering with the financial powers of the panchayat came up for hearing, said “Whether the power has been rightly or wrongfully exercised will depend on the factual matrix of each case and it is not possible to lay down that such a power should not be exercised.” The bench also held that “The contention that such a power does not exist under section 203 of the said Act has already been repelled by this Court in the context of Section 205 of the said Act. There is thus no case of absence of power.” However, the bench before closing the case observed, “The establishment of panchayat to support dissolution of administration at the ground level would require the authorities to make the persons elected more aware of their duties and responsibilities and that is an endeavour which must continue.” The Tamil Nadu Federation of Women Presidents of Panchayat Government had contended that the emergency powers granted under Section 203 of the TNPA, 1994 to the government officials are grossly amplified by the District Collectors, as if the panchayat leaders were their administrative subordinates.