Can’t file pleas one after another for same object, bench tells petitioner

Criticising the petitioner, a division bench comprising Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice Subramonium Prasad said, “The present writ petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the petitioner is now getting into the habit of filing repeated writ petitions for the very same relief. The conduct of the petitioner is deprecated. One cannot be permitted to file petitions one after another for achieving the same object.”

“Even though the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with costs, but yet we refrain from doing so hoping that the petitioner would not indulge in filing further writ petitions for the very same cause,” the bench added.

As per the case, the petitioner Sioma Priscilla and her friend Kiran Fathima started a playschool in the ground floor of a tenanted premises on Rukumai Street, Kalakshetra Colony, Adyar. Based on a complaint from the landowners, proceedings were initiated against Sioma under the Town and Country Planning Act and a notice was issued on November 14, 2018 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises.

Based on this, the petitioner filed an appeal against the said notice before the Additional Secretary (Technical) Housing and Urban Development Department. But pending the appeal, she also moved the High Court. The first bench, which heard the case directed the authorities to dispose the appeal.

However, the appeal was dismissed on the basis that usage of premises for playschool is an unauthorised use change and hence GCC’s notice is valid. Pursuant to this, the GCC directed Sioma to shift by an order dated March 07, 2019. But the said order was challenged, and the first bench dismissed the same on April 03, 2019. Challenging this, the petitioner filed a review petition, which is yet to heard.

But GCC passed another order on April 27 directing the petitioner to de-occupy the premises. But citing the pending review petition, the present plea had been moved. But the bench rejected the same on the basis that a pending review petition cannot be a ground for interfering with GCC’s order.