Manna Sweets Easaa WP

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Jurisdiction)
W.P. No. of 2018
The Branch Manager,

M/s. Bajaj Alliancz Life Insurance Co.
Ltd., 1st Floor, Kaluveetal tennu centre,
Court road, Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District-629001 …Petitioner
-Versus-
1.The Presiding Officer,

The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai.
2. M.Antony Dhass,
No.12/54, Mary’s Cottage,
Muthuraman Kovil Road,
Thickanamcode,
Kanyakumari District – 629804 …Respondents
AFFIDAVIT OF ……………………………..
I, ………………………………., son of ………………………, Hindu, aged about ……… years,

working as Branch Manager, Bajaj Alliancz Life Insurance Company Ltd, having
office at ………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………,
do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:-
1. I am the Petitioner herein and well conversant with the facts and circumstances
of the case.
2. I submit that Bajaj Alliancz Life Insurance Company Ltd., is a company

incorporated under the Companies Act,1956 and registered under and in terms
of the Insurance Act, 1938 and the Insurance Regulatory and Development
Authority (IRDA) Act, 1999 to carry out the business of life
insurance……………………………..……………………………………………………………….…(to be
filed)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………..
Page No. :
No. of Corrections: Nil
2
3. I submit that the 2nd respondent was deputed by one of the company’s
consultants, M/s. Ma Foi Managament Consultants Ltd., a company registered
under Companies ACT, 1956. The 2nd respondent was the employee of M/s. Ma
Foi Management Consultants Ltd, prior to his employment with the Petitioner
company and had been deputed by them to work at the premises of the
petitioner company.
4. I submit that the 2nd respondent was appointed in our company by the
Appointment Letter dated 22nd April, 2006. He had acknowledged and accepted
that he had gone through all the terms and conditions mentioned in our
company offer letter/ appointment letter and agreed that the terms shall remain
binding. The 2nd respondent joined duty in the post of “ Customer Support
Executive” in Grade L-1 in our company i.e., Bajaj Alliancz Life Insurance
Company Limited at Nagercoil Branch Office on 1st June 2006.
5. I further submit that though the 2nd respondent was based at Nagercoil Office,
“the Company reserves the right to transfer him to any other location
where the Company has office or newly established office as per the
requirements of the Company. His services are transferable at short notice,
to any department or to any Office, Branch, division of this Company or in
any subsidiary of this Company or your services may be seconded you to
any other Company or any other place where work of the Company is
carried out, as may be necessary.” This had been clearly noted under the
clause “Location” in the Appointment order of the 2nd respondent.
6. I submit that I gradually learnt that the building did not have approval for the
2nd and 3rd floors and there were slight deviations in the ground floor. This
error was apparently owing to the over zealousness of the contractor and I was
keen to rectify the same. Having heard about the exemption and regularisation
scheme floated by the Government, I thought it fit to apply and set right the
property. With this end in mind, I approached the authorities in mid 2002 and
submitted requisite applications for regularisation. I also remitted a fee of
Rs.3,01,265/- on 17.06.2002. My application was taken in as Reg No. 25305 and
was being processed. I assumed that pursuant to the requisition for
regularisation the issue would be sorted out.
Page No. :
3
7. I further submit that I was given to understand that the scheme for
regularisation so introduced by the Government was subject to several rounds of
litigation, culminating in the Apex Court. After various discussions on the
validity of such regularisation scheme, the Courts had ultimately held that the
scheme would apply in respect of only such buildings that were constructed
prior to February 1999. On the basis of such decision of the Courts, the 2nd
Respondent rejected my request for regularisation, vide letter dated 28.12.2012.
However, the regularisation fee so paid by me was not refunded, despite
rejection of my application. I, however, later received a letter dated 11.09.2016
from the office o the 2nd respondent calling for evidence with regard to the date
of construction over my property.
8. I further submit that out of the blue, I received a notice dated 07.03.2017 from
the office of the 4th respondent calling for a copy of the approved plan for my
building. The notice which was issued under Sections 56 & 57 of the Town and
Country Planning Act, further warned of pulling down the structure, if there was
no approved plan. Upon receipt thereof, I was liaising with the officials and
informed them that I had applied for regularisation and that the 2nd respondent
was still considering my application.
9. I further submit that I thereafter received a notice dated 05.07.2018 from the
4th Respondent pointing out certain purported infractions in the construction of
the building. The said letter made reference to WP No. 10011/2018 and
indicated that my building was inspected on 04.07.2018. Based on such
supposed inspection, deviations were pointed out. I was rather perturbed on
receipt of the same as I was unaware of any writ petition and the premises was
not inspected on 04.07.2018. However, even before I could gather myself, the
4th respondent issued a notice dated 06.07.2018, under Sections 56 & 57 of the
Town and Country Planning Act, calling upon me to discontinue my occupation
of the property, within 7 days from the date of such notice. The notice further
warned me of the premises being locked and sealed and razed down completely.
When the officials came over, I informed them about the regularisation scheme
Page No. :
4
that remained pending for consideration by the 2nd respondent herein. But they
turned a deaf ear.
10. I submit that I was shell shocked by the sudden developments which had grave
consequences. I immediately sought to inquire about the writ petition referred
to in the said notice so received by me. Upon inquiry, I gathered that one Mr.
Thunai Anandraj had approached this Court alleging that my building was
constructed in violation of all norms. On such complaint, this Court, vide order
dated 23.04.2018, had directed the 4th Respondent herein to inspect the
premises and take appropriate legal action, if found necessary. However, this
Court had specifically instructed that I should be duly served notice prior to
inspection and action, if any to be taken was to be subject to legal interdict
initiated by me. It is relevant that I was not served with notice of the said writ
petition and was not heard before the said order was passed.
10. It is also relevant that the inspection purported to have been carried out was in
my absence and I was not notified of the same, and was certainly not at the
premises when such inspection was conducted. I hasten to add that I carry on
commercial business at the premises and even in my absence, I have several
employees and staff working at the premises. It is impossible to have come over
to inspect the property without the knowledge of those present at the site.
While asserting that neither me nor my staff participated in the inspection or
were even present, I state that I fear that no inspection was at all conducted and
it is an ingenious statement that the premises was inspected. I also fail to fathom
the interest that this individual Thunai Anandraj could have possibly taken with
regard to my property in exclusion of all other properties in the vicinity. Also,
the area being a Continuous Boundary Area the statement in the inspection
report that I had violated on set back was rather unsettling.
11. I further submit that in the meantime, I contacted my consultant with regard to
the status of the regularisation that I had applied for. Though the CMDA had
sought to reconsider the application, there was no progress and it seemed like
the application was put in cold storage. I had also gotten in touch with my
lawyer in the meantime and sought advice on legal recourse, more specifically
Page No. :
5
with the actions that were supposedly taken by the 4th respondent, without
notice to me and consequently in violation of the order of this Court dated
23.04.2018.
12. While I was still assimilating the further course, I received from the 5th
respondent a notice dated 14.07.2018. Making reference to WP No.10011/2018
and some internal communications, the 5th respondent informed me of
disconnection of water and sewer supply to the premises on 17.07.2018.
13. I submit that the notice dated 06.07.2018 issued by the 4th respondent not
being in order and being in gross violation of this Hon’ble Court’s direction
dated 23.04.2018, I was thoroughly aggrieved and agitated by the same. I
availed remedy under Section 80A of the Town and Country Planning Act and
filed an appeal against the de-occupation notice dated 06.07.2018, which appeal
was filed by me on 16.07.2018. I crave leave of this Court to treat the grounds
therein as part and parcel of this affidavit.
14. However, before I could wink my eyes, the water and sewer supply were
disconnected by the 5th respondent on 17.07.2018. Even when the officials
came over to effect such disconnection, I showed them the regularisation
application, as well as the letter from CMDA which indicated that the same was
under consideration. I also informed them of my appeal with the 1st respondent
under Section 80-A of the Town and Country Planning Act and shared a copy of
the same. The officials seemed to be there with a avowed interest of harassing
me and paid no heed to my representations. The water ad sewer connections
were severed on 14.07.2018. The pendency of my appeal did not even make
them bat their eye lid.The electricity connection to the premises has also been
disconnected pursuant to the said lock and seal notice.
15. I further submit that since the earlier regularisation application made by me
was under process for close to two decades without any concrete results. I was
advised to avail of the new scheme under Section 113C of the Town and Country
planning Act. An application to this effect was submitted online on 21.07.2018
and the due fee remitted in that regard. The application is under scrutiny and
Page No. :
6
upon verifying the same, I would be advised of the regularisation fee payable
and I intend to duly comply with the same.
16. I further submit that I am a law abiding citizen and have at all times worked
towards giving back to the Society. The inspection and consequent de-
occupation notice, are erroneous and bound to be set aside as the basic
principles of natural justice stand violated. More importantly, I have sought for
regularisation of the building both under the earlier and the present scheme and
pending consideration of my application action ought no to have been initiated
to lock and seal my premises. Asides, my appeal under Section 80A is also
pending consideration by the 1st respondent herein. Being aggrieved by the
highhanded action taken, I am filing the present writ petition to set aside the
same on the following among other
GROUNDS
a. The impugned letter dated 06.07.2018 and the consequent actions are against
law, principles of natural justice and equity.
b. The Petitioner has not been put on notice prior to inspection and the unilateral
inspection that the 4th respondent claims to have conducted is clouded in
mystery.
c. The inspection report dated 05.07.2018 does not reflect the correct
measurements of the premises and it is only just and necessary that the
premises be re-inspected in the presence of the petitioner.
d. The Petitioner had sought regularisation of his structure as early as in 2002 and
paid a fee of Rs.301,265/- as early as in June 2002. Even as on September 2016,
the 2nd respondent has addressed that the application remains pending. While
so, no action ought to have been taken against the Petitioner’s building during
the pendency of such application.
Page No. :
7
e. The filing of an appeal under Section 80-A against the order of Lock and Seal
issued by the 4th respondent ought to have weighed in the mind of the 4th
respondent before plunging into further action. However, the 4th and 5th
respondents in complete disregard to the appeal so filed have acted in a very
hasty manner.
f. The petitioner has also filed for regularisation under Section 113C of the Tamil
Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and the same is pending consideration.
While the petitioner has been given such amnesty opportunity by the State, no
action should be taken till disposal of the same.
g. The targeting of the petitioner’s premises in exclusion of other properties in the

neighborhood is unsettling.
h. The issuance of the notice dated 06.07.2018 is against the order of this court
passed in WP No. 10011/201 dated 23.04.2018 and is consequently liable to be
set aside. It is relevant that this Court had specifically stated that action if any
shall be subject to legal interdict of the Petitioner. But the authorities have
turned a blind eye to the appeal filed by the petitioner as well as the
regularisation effort taken by him.
i. The application for regularisation was made as early as in June 2002 and the fee
therefor, duly remitted. The Petitioner cannot be penalised for the inaction of the
2nd respondent.
I further submit that there are several employees dependent on the income earned
from toiling at the sweet stall. By severance of water and sewerage connections, we
are unable to function from and out of the premises. Besides, my employees and
staff stay in the upper floors and are unable to use the toilet even to attend nature’s
call. This has inconvenienced and made life miserable for over 35 people, besides
me and all this when legal recourse has already been availed by me. There is no
power at the premises and in this second summer at Chennai, it is impossible to
survive without these amenities. The hardship that we are all undergoing is
unendurable and inexplicable. I do believe that i have a good case on merits and
until disposal should not be subjected to hardships and ignominy. Raw materials
Page No. :
8
valuing to over Rs.5 Lakhs is lying inside the premises and being perishable in
nature, would rot and go waste for inability to access the building that is now
sealed by the 4th respondent.
I, therefore, humbly pray that this Court may be pleased to direct the 5th
Respondent to re-connect water and sewerage services to the property bearing
No.6-A, Station View Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600024, pending disposal of
the above writ petition and thus render justice.
Respondent to re-connect electricity under Service connection No. 226/049/189,
226/049/191, 226/049/195, 226/049/196, 226/049/232 to the property bearing
No.6-A, Station View Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600024, pending disposal of
the above writ petition and thus render justice.
Respondent to unlock and un-seal the property bearing No.6-A, Station View Road,
Kodambakkam, Chennai 600024, allowing access to the petitioner and his
representatives, pending disposal of the above writ petition and thus render
justice.
I, therefore, humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of
CERTIORARI or such other Writ or order or direction in the nature of Writ calling
for the notice dated 06.07.2018, bearing No. Z.O.XI7275/2018, issued by the 4th
respondent together with all related records, and quash the same and pass such
further or other orders in the interests of justice and circumstances of the case.
Solemnly affirmed at Chennai on

27th day of July 2018 and signed
his name in my presence. BEFORE ME
Advocate, Chennai
Page No. :
9
MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
W.P. No. of 2018
The Branch Manager,

M/s. Bajaj Alliancz Life Insurance Co.
Ltd., 1st Floor, Kaluveetal tennu centre,
Court road, Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District-629001 …Petitioner
-Versus-
1.The Presiding Officer,

The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai.
Page No. :
10
2. M.Antony Dhass,
No.12/54, Mary’s Cottage,
Muthuraman Kovil Road,
Thickanamcode,
Kanyakumari District – 629804 …Respondents
WRIT PETITION
The address for the service of the petitioner is that of his counsel M/s.
…………………………………………………………………….., having office at M/s. Leela & Co.,
No. 4/8, 4th Floor, Turnbulls road, Nandhanam, Chennai - 600035
The address for service of the Respondents is the same as stated above.
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Hon’ble
court may be pleased to issue a Writ of CERTIORARI or such other Writ or order or
direction in the nature of Writ calling for the Award dated 05.11.2015, in Industrial
Dispute No. 43/ 2014, issued by the 1st Respondent together with all related
records, and quash the same and pass such further or other orders in the interests
of justice and circumstances of the case.
Dated at Chennai this the day of April 2019
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
Page No. :
11
MEMORANDUM OF MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF

CONSTITUITION OF INDIA
W.MP No. of 2018
IN
W.P. No. of 2018
K.EASSA
S/o Mr. Koil Pillai,
6-A, Station View Road,
Kodambakkam,
Chennai 600024 …Petitioner/
Petitioner
-Versus-
1.THE STATE
Rep. by its Secretary - Housing & Urban Development,
Fort St.George,
Chennai.
2. The Member Secretary,

CMDA,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,
Egmore, Chennai 600008.
3. COMMISSIONER
Corporation of Chennai,
Rippon Buildings,
Page No. :
12
Chennai 600003.
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER - Zone X

117, NSK Salai,
Kodambakkam, Chennai 600024.
5. AREA ENGINEER
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board,
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chintadripet, Chennai 600002.
6.THE CHAIRMAN,
TANGEDCO
10th Floor, NPKRR Maligai,
114, Anna Salai, Chennai 600002.
7.ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
TNEB,
Rangarajapuram, Sivan Koil Street,
Kodambakkam, Chennai 600024 …Respondents/
Respondents
PETITION FOR INTERIM DIRECTION
The address for the service of the petitioner is that of his counsel M/s. HAMEED
ISMAIL, S.P.ARTHI, A.UMASHANKAR & D.THIRUMOORTHY, having office at No. 89,
Kasthuri Avenue, MRC Nagar, R.A.Puram, Chennai-600 028.
court may be pleased to direct the 5th Respondent to re-connect water and
sewerage services to the property bearing No.6-A, Station View Road,
Kodambakkam, Chennai 600024, pending disposal of the above writ petition and
pass such further or other orders as its deems fit in the facts and circumstances of
the case and thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai this the 27th day of July 2018
Page No. :
13

W.MP No. of 2018
IN
W.P. No. of 2018
K.EASSA
Kodambakkam,
Petitioner
-Versus-
1.THE STATE
Fort St.George,
Chennai.

CMDA,
3. COMMISSIONER
Rippon Buildings,
Chennai 600003.
Page No. :
14

117, NSK Salai,
5. AREA ENGINEER
6.THE CHAIRMAN,
TANGEDCO

TNEB,
Respondents
court may be pleased to direct the 7th Respondent to re-connect electricity under
Service connection No. 226/049/189, 226/049/191, 226/049/195, 226/049/196,
226/049/232 to the property bearing No.6-A, Station View Road, Kodambakkam,
Chennai 600024, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such further
or other orders as its deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus
render justice.
Page No. :
15

W.MP No. of 2018
IN
W.P. No. of 2018
K.EASSA
Kodambakkam,
Petitioner
-Versus-
1.THE STATE
Fort St.George,
Chennai.

CMDA,
3. COMMISSIONER
Rippon Buildings,
Chennai 600003.
Page No. :
16
117, NSK Salai,
5. AREA ENGINEER
6.THE CHAIRMAN,
TANGEDCO
TNEB,
Respondents
court may be pleased to direct the 4th Respondent to unlock and un-seal the
property bearing No.6-A, Station View Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600024,
allowing access to the petitioner and his representatives, pending disposal of the
above writ petition and pass such further or other orders as its deems fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Page No. :
17
W.P. No. of 2018
K.EASSA …Petitioner
-Versus-
THE STATE
Secretary - Housing & Urban Development & Others …Respondents
INDEX TO TYPED SET OF PAPERS

S No. DATE DESCRIPTION PAGE
1. 06.03.2003 Corporation Tax Assessment Working
2. 17.06.2002 Cash Bill for payment of Regularisation Fee to 2nd
Respondent by Petitioner with Acknowledgement
3. 28.09.2012 Letter from 2nd Respondent to Petitioner
4. 28.12.2012 Letter from 2nd Respondent to Petitioner
5 11.09.2016 Letter from 2nd Respondent to Petitioner
6 07.03.2017 Notice calling for approved plan by office of 4th
Respondent to Petitioner
7 23.04.2018 Order passed in WP No. 10011/2018
8 05.07.2018 Inspection report from 4th Respondent to Petitioner
9 06.07.2018 De-Occupation cum Lock & Seal Notice from 4th
Respondent to Petitioner
10 14.07.2018 Letter from 5th Respondent for disconnection of
water and sewer connection
11 16.07.2018 Appeal to 1st Respondent by Petitioner under Section
Page No. :
18
80-A of Town and Country Planning Act with ack

12 21.07.2018 Application for regularization
13 EB card
14 Photographs
Certified to be true copies of originals


W.P. No. of 2018
K.EASSA …Petitioner
-Versus-
THE STATE
Secretary - Housing & Urban Development & Others …Respondents
DATES & EVENTS
DATE DESCRIPTION
1985 Petitioner purchased property at 6A, Station View Road,
Kodambakkam, Chennai and started a sweet stall at the premises,
which then consisted of ground + 3 floors.
17.06.2002 Petitioner applied for regularization of the building to set right
deviations under Section 113A of the Town and Country Planning Act
and paid a fee of Rs.3,01,265/-
28.09.2012 2nd Respondent pursues petitioner’s application for regularization
and calls for records
28.12.2012 Request of petitioner for regularization rejected by the 2nd
respondent
11.09.2016 Letter from 2nd Respondent to Petitioner calling for documents to
support request for regularization
Page No. :
19
07.03.2017 Notice calling for approved plan by office of 4th Respondent to

Petitioner
23.04.2018 High Court passes order in WP No. 10011/2018 filed by one Thunai
Anandraj seeking action against Petitioner’s building
05.07.2018 Inspection report from 4th Respondent to Petitioner
06.07.2018 De-Occupation cum Lock & Seal Notice from 4th Respondent to
Petitioner
14.07.2018 Letter from 5th Respondent for disconnection of water and sewer
connection
16.07.2018 Appeal to 1st Respondent by Petitioner under Section 80-A of Town
and Country Planning Act with ack
21.07.2018 Application of petitioner for regularization of his building filed under
Sec.113C of Town and Country Planning Act
Page No. :

Manna Sweets Easaa WP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manna Sweets Easaa WP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manna Sweets Easaa WP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

W.P. No. of 2018

The Branch Manager,

1.The Presiding Officer,

I, ………………………………., son of ………………………, Hindu, aged about ……… years,

2. I submit that Bajaj Alliancz Life Insurance Company Ltd., is a company

g. The targeting of the petitioner’s premises in exclusion of other properties in the

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai on

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

W.P. No. of 2018

The Branch Manager,

1.The Presiding Officer,

Dated at Chennai this the day of April 2019

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM OF MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

W.MP No. of 2018

W.P. No. of 2018

2. The Member Secretary,

4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER - Zone X

PETITION FOR INTERIM DIRECTION

Dated at Chennai this the 27th day of July 2018

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM OF MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

W.MP No. of 2018

W.P. No. of 2018

2. The Member Secretary,

4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER - Zone X

7.ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

PETITION FOR INTERIM DIRECTION

Dated at Chennai this the 27th day of July 2018

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM OF MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

W.MP No. of 2018

W.P. No. of 2018

2. The Member Secretary,

4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER - Zone X

PETITION FOR INTERIM DIRECTION

Dated at Chennai this the 27th day of July 2018

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

W.P. No. of 2018

INDEX TO TYPED SET OF PAPERS

80-A of Town and Country Planning Act with ack

Certified to be true copies of originals

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

W.P. No. of 2018

DATES & EVENTS

07.03.2017 Notice calling for approved plan by office of 4th Respondent to

Dated at Chennai this the 27th day of July 2018

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

You might also like