Citizen, Consumer And Civic Action Group v. Union Of India And Others

K. NARAYANA KURUP, J.

Dr. M. A. M. Ramaswamy, his brothers wife Mrs. Meena Muthiah and her adopted son Mr. Annamalai Muthiah (hereinafter referred to as the builder) had submitted an application to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as C.M.D.A.) on 27-4-1995 to put up a construction of seven blocks of multi-storeyed buildings, consisting of basement, ground floor and none floors upon the lands owned by them, comprised in S. Nos. 4288/2 and 4288/14, situate in Santhome village, Chennai-600 028. The total extent of the said lands where proposed construction was to be put up comes to 88 grounds. The construction had to be completed after complying with all the requirements prescribed by the C.M.D.A. under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and the Development Control Rules framed thereunder, besides scrupulously adhering to the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Notification issued under it. On receipt of the aforesaid application, the C. M. D. A. in turn, as the construction was of a multi-storeyed residential complex, required other authorities, namely, the Director of Fire Services, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Swereage Board (hereinafter referred to as C. M. W. S. S. B.) and Chief Engineer, Corporation of Chennai to give their no objection (N.O.C.) for further processing the planning permission application after considering the permissibility of the building from the point of view and guidelines prescribed by the said authorities. Few months after the receipt of the aforesaid application, the C. M. D. A., by its letter dated 1-11-1995, informed the builder that the Planning Permission application is being scrutinised and that the builder should remit a sum of Rs. 2, 02, 000/- towards development charges and a further sum of Rs. 71, 40, 000/- towards security deposit, securing the interests of C. M. D. A. and ensuring that no deviations are made to the sanctioned plan. Thereafter, the C. M. W. S. S. B., in its turn, had requested the builder to remit a sum of Rs. 7, 27, 270/- towards infrastructural development charges, so that, it would be in a position to provide water and sewerage facilities by creating necessary infrastructure for the proposed construction, as borne out by the letter dated 15-6-1996. Since the construction was for the purpose of putting up multi-storeyed building in accordance with the regulations of C. M. D. A., the applicant for Planning Permission should either pay a compensatory payment called as "open space reservation charges" or in the alternative, agree to gift a proportionate extent of land equivalent to the value of "open space reservation charges" in favour of the Corporation of Chennai. The builder complied with all the demands made by the C. M. D. A. and other authorities, by remitting the development charges, security deposit, etc., as borne out by the letter dated 2-11-1995. The builder also executed gift deed dated 14-12-1995 in favour of the Corporation of Chennai of an extent of 2, 321 Sq. M. of land in lieu of compensatory payment called as "open space reservation charges" for the purpose of grant of planning Permission as stipulated by the C.M.D.A. and also the Building Permit by the Corporation of Chenni. By letter dated 6-1-1996, the Corporaqtion of Chennai informed the builder that the registered gift deed (vide Doc. No. 3178/95, dated 29-12-1995) has been accepted by the Special Officer (council) (vide Resolution No. 1/96, dated 5-1-1996) and it was requested that the builder should fence the open space reserved area and provide a gate from the public road for safety and further maintenance and inform the office for the purpose of physical take over. The builder complied with the same and physically handed over possession of the land to the Corporation of Chennai on 11-1-1996, duly obtaining acknowledgement. Earlier, the Director of Fire Services, by his communication dated 26-5-1995, informed the builder that an inspection would be conducted for consideration of the grant of N.O.C. by the officials of the Fire Service Department on 31-5-1995. After the inspection was carried out, by communication dated 29-6-1995, the director of Fire Services granted N. O. C. from his side for according Planning Permission to the proposal submitted by the builder. The builder also received N. O. C. from the Department of Telecom, as borne out by the letter issued by the Divisional Engineer (Telecom), dated 27-11-1995. The Airport Authority of India also granted its N.O.C. to the builder for the proposed construction, by its communication dated 12-1-1996. The Ministry of communications of the Government of India, Monitoring Organisation also gave its N. O. C. for the proposed construction on 19-1-1996, which was followed by a communication from the Director General of All India Radio (A.I.R. on 305-1996. On the basis of the materials thus furnished by the builder, the Expert Panel of the C.M.D.A. considered the case of the builder, which also included the report of the Corporation of Chennai and the Government of Tamil Nadu was accordingly addressed by the C. M. D. A. that the proposal of the builder had been examined and placed before the Panel Meeting of the C. M. D. A., which, after due deliberation, had recommended issuance of planning Permission on certain terms and conditions. The C. M. D. A. had made it clear that the builder had complied with all the conditions imposed and requested the Government of Tamil Nadu to consider all the relevant facts and for approval of the decision of the Panel and its recommendations. The Government of Tamil Nadu, granted its approval, subject to the condition that the builder obtained N. O. C. from the Madras Regional Advisory Committee and the Civil Aviation Department as a pre-condition for issue of Planning Permission and also subject to fulfilment of the conditions imposed by the Director of Fire Services and Metro Water, all of which have already been fulfilled by the builder. Since the Planning Permission was still not received, the builder wrote to the C. M. D. A. on 27-6-1996 and requested Sanction of the plan and also sent a copy of the sketch and original letter, and requested the sanction to be sent to the corporation of Chennai under advise to the builder for necessary action. The C. M. D. A. responded the builder by granting its Planning permission, as per its letter dated 20-7-1996. The Planning Permission granted by the C. M. D. A. was for a period of three years from 20-7-1996 to 19-7-1999.

2. In the light of the above facts and when the C. M. D. A. had granted the Planning Permission after taking note of clearance from all authorities, the Corporation of Chennai was bound to grant Building Permit to the builder and there was nothing else required by the Corporation as it is very much party at all relevant point of time and it was effective consuleted in the matter of grant of Planning Permission by the C. M. D. A. The Corporation of Chennai informed the builder by its communication dated 7-8-1996 to furnish certain particulars for consideration of the grant of Building Permit by them. The builder complied with all the request made by the Corporation and furnished necessary clarifications. However, it transpired that immediately after the C. M. D. A. had granted Planning Permission, the Corporation of Chennai informed the C. M. D. A. that it appeared prima-facie that the builders site may be affected by coastal Regulation Zone prescriptions (hereinafter referred to as "C. R. Z.") as the site was very close to Adyar river. According to the builder, the aforesaid objection was without any substance, because, there are several residential buildings, which have come up in the vicinity and several other buildings are in the process of construction after obtaining necessary Planning Permission and permit. In any case, the builder provided necessary clarifications to the corporation by letter dated 2-4-1997, by which, the Corporation was informed that the site where the construction was to be put up was 720 meters away from the High Tide Line (hereinafter referred to as "H. T. L") of the Bay of Bengal, for which, sufficient proof had been submitted and this distance was measured and surveyed by the Indian Institute of Technology (hereinafter referred to as I.I.T.), Madras. The builder also invited the attention of the Corporation to the norms for regulation of activities under the C. R. A. and particularly inviting the attention to Regulation 6(2) of C. R. Z. -II, which prohibits the construction on the seaward side only while permitting construction on the landward side of the existing and proposed roads, subject to the existing local Town and country Planning regulations. The builder also specifically pointed out that there was an existing road between adyar river and the construction site and that since the prohibition was only on the seaward side and the proposed construction was admittedly on the landward side, there could be absolutely no prohibition for the construction of the building, provided the builder complied with the requirements of the local Town and Country Planning Act, namely, the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. The builder further pointed out that as per the C. R. Z. Regulations, the construction cannot be objected to at all, because, even between Adyar Creek /river and the proposed construction, there was a public road proposed as per the master plan and it was well recognised that whenever there was a public road between creek and the building, there cannot be any objection for any construction activity. In any event, the construction activity in question was situate beyond 720 meters from the H. T. L. and as such, not hit by the prohibited distance. All these aspects had been examined by the appropriate authorities and much water had flown with the builder having even executed the gift deed in favour of the corporation, and such being the position, there was no reason why the Corporation should with hold the grant of Permit when the appropriate planning authority, namely, C. M. D. A. had granted planning Permission to the builder in consultation with all expert bodies as mentioned above, with the active participation of the Corporation through its senior officials, and which itself was benefitted by the donation of a substantial chunk of land for public purpose, which was acted upon by the Corporation. The builder sent several letters to the Corporation, requesting to forthwith grant building Pernmit in the light of the facts mentioned above. Since the Corporation has not come forward to grant the permission, the builder was driven to this Court in W. P. No. 14823 of 1997 with the following prayer, namely :-

"to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to forthwith grant building permit to the petitioner in respect of the construction undertaken in S. Nos. 4288/2 and 4288/14 in Santhome village. Chennai-600 028, in the light of the Planning Permission granted by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority in its Planning Permission No. C3/14876/96, dated 20-7-1996 and pursuant to the gift deed executed in favour of the Corporation of chennai by the petitioner as condition precedent for the grant of Planning Permission which was duly accepted and acted upon by the respondent and pass such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."

In the said writ petition the Corporation filed a counter affidavit submitting that,

"on receipt of the reply from C. M. D. A., this respondent will issue necessary Building Permit immediately, after satisfying with the provisions of Coastal Regulation Rules."

On a consideration of the rival contentions and pleadings, learned single Judge, by order dated 14-10-1997, allowed the writ petition directing the Corporation of Chennai to consider the builders application for building Permit and pass final orders on the same within ten days from the date of the order. While allowing the writ petition as above, the learned single Judge has found that since the builder has satisfied all the statutory requirements and the Planning Permission has also been granted by the C. M. D. A. only after inspection, it must be presumed that the permission granted by it is in accordance with law. based on the aforesaid order of the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 1428 of 1997, the Corporation of Chennai proceeded to grant Building Permit as well on 17-10-1997. However, aggrieved by the order in the said writ petition, the appellant, viz., "Citizen, consumer and Civic action Group" had sought leave of a Division Bench of this Court to file a writ appeal in public interest against the aforesaid order of the learned single Judge and the said appeal was numbered as W. A. No. 1663 of 1997 after grant of leave.

3. The appellant in W. A. No. 1663 of 1997, namely, Citizen, Consumer and Civic Action Group, after the conclusion of arguments in W. P. No. 14823 of 1997, had also filed W. P. No. 15471 of 1997 before this Court seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents (Government of India, Government of Tamil Nadu, C. M. D. A., Corporation of chennai, etc., ) to demolish the construction put up by the builder adjoining the Adyar estuary and restoring the lands to their original character, acquiring them under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 with a view to develop the Adyar creek and estuary as a sanctuary or as a national park and consequently direct the respondents therein to forbear from permitting any development or construction on the said area (), W. P. No. 15417 of 1997 came up for admission on 14-10-1997 on which date W. P. No. 14823 of 1997 filed by the builder came up for orders before this court. Learned single Judge, having regard to the fact that W. P. No. 14823 of 1997 was disposed of by giving necessary directions to the Corporation of Chennai, felt that nothing survives for consideration in W. P. No. 15471 of 1997 and in that view, dismissed the same, by order dated 14-10-1997. W. A. No. 1291 of 1997 is directed against that order of the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 15471 of 1997.

4. During the pendency of the writ appeals, namely, W. A. Nos. 1291 and 1663 of 1997, the appellant, namely, "Citizen, Consumer and Civic Action Group" further filed W. P. No. 8030 of 2000 (which being a public interest litigation matter, came up before the division Bench) seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents therein, viz., Union of India, State of Tamil Nadu, Corporation of Chennai, etc.,

"to stop road construction and land reclamation activities in the areas adjoining Adyar creek and restore the land to its original character."

5. Both the writ appeals, namely, W. A. Nos. 1291 and 1663 of 1997 and W. P. 8030 of 2000 are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

6. In sum and substance, the point that arises for consideration in these writ appeals and the writ petition in W.P. No. 8030 of 2000 is whether the builder is entitled to the grant of building Permit by the Corporation of chennai as prayed for. The fact that the builder has obtained N.O.C. from all the authorities concerned is not in dispute. Hence, that is not a point in issue to be decided here. Accordingly, all that we have to see is whether the construction activity in question is hit by the provisions of the Notification issued under S./ 3(1) and S. 3(2) (v) of the environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the rules framed thereunder, declaring the coastal stretches as Coastal Regulation Zone (C. R. A.) and regulating activities in the C. R. Z., being within the prohibited distance of Adyar river. Any doubt on this score stands dispelled by the survey conducted by I.I.T., Madras based on aerial survey and maps available. the summary and conclusion of the report of the Ocean Engineering Centre of the I. I. T. , Madras touching on this aspect of the matter is as follows :-

"The distance from the High Tide Line (taking maximum tidal range of 1.0 m off Madras) upto the existing road between Adyar river and Rani Meyyammai tower is 720M. The distances from the High Tide Line to the other selected areas adjorning RM towers are indicated in the drawings enclosed.

As stated earlier, the mesurements have indicated clearly that the site (Rani Meyyammai towers) is found to be about 720 m from the High Tide Line which is more than the prescribed 500 m from High Tide Line as cited by Ministry of Environment and Forest."

The aforesaid report of the I. I. T. establishes beyond doubt that the construction activity is beyond the prohibited distance as envisaged under the C. R.Z-. Notification. In this context, we may observe that the H.T.L. itself had been demarcated only long after grant of Planning Permission to the builder by the C. M. D. A. and long after the filing of the writ appeals. Even the Coastal Zone Management Plan for the State of Tamil Nadu was approved, subject to certain conditions only in September 1996, after the grant of Planning Permission. It was also brought to our notice that several individuals have been granted Planning Permission by the C. M. D. A. and Building Permit by the corporation Chennai to construct buildings in the area and it is also evident from the pleadings that even in the very same area, Planning Permissions and Building Permits have been granted prior to the finalisation of the Coastal Zone Management Plan. When the authority concerned, namely, the C. M. D. A. has granted the Planning Permission and when several labyrinthine formalities have been completed, we wonder how building Permit can be declined by the Corporation of chennai in the case of this builder, unless there are compelling reasons justifying the denial of building permit. We find no such reason much less compelling reason justifying the denial of building Permit in the instant case. It is not open for the corporation of Chennai to turn round and contend that the proceedings for grant of Planning Permission were finalised behind their back. In respect of grant of approval for multi-storeyed buildings, a panel has been constituted by the C. M. D. A., which also includes the representatives of the Corporation of chennai and it was that panel which recommended and approved the builders proposal and it was based on that recommendation, the builder complied with various conditions by obtaining necessary approval from various authorities and also agreeing to the gift of the portion of the land to the Corporation of chennai. The Corporation of Chennai, after having been very much party to the grant of Planning Permission by the C. M. D. A., and after having insisted and accepted the vast extent of land to be gifted from the builder and taking possession of the said land so gifted for the public purpose in consideration of the grant of planning Permission by the C. M. D. A., cannot go behind its own decision and put the builder to prejudice by with holding Building Permit notwithstanding the grant of Planning Permission by the C. M. D. A. In such a case, we are of opinion that the Corporation of chennai is bound to grant Building Permit simultaneously or immediately after the C. M. D. A. grants Planning Permission under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and the Development Control Rules. In this view of the matter, the action of the Corporation of Chennai in denying the Building Permit to the builder is patently unreasonable and arbitrary and would be ultra -vires of the provisions of the tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and the Development Control Rules, militating against the very scheme of the said Act, besides being discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

7. The fact that construction activity is beyond 500 metres from the H. T. L. has also been conclusively re-affirmed by the Tamil Nadu State Coastal Zone Management Authority (constituted under S. 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act) which was suo motu impleaded by us as additional 7th respondent as per order dated 20-4-2001 in W. A. No. 1291 of 1997, wherein, we have made the following reference to the said additional 7th respondent :-

"(i) to determine and verify whether the construction site in question falls within the coastal Regulation Zone (tidal action).

(ii) if the answer to (i) is yes, the distance at which the construction site is situated from the High Tide Line (H.T. L.) of the Bay of Bengal.

(iii) the distance of which the construction site is situated from the adyar river (H.T.L.)."

8. In response to our reference, the additional 7th respondent, namely, The Tamil Nadu State Coastal Zone Management Authority along with the officials of C. M. D. A. and Corporation of Chennai, inspected the area adjoining the construction site in S. Nos. 4288/2 and 4288/14 of Mylapore Division in Mylapore-Triplicane taluk, Chennai on 22-6-2001 and submitted the following reply to the queries referred to by us in W. A. No. 1291 of 1997 :-

(i) construction site in question falls within the Coastal Regulation Zone (C. R. Z.) as it is located adjacent to tidal influenced water body, viz., Adyar creek. As the area falls in Chennai city, it is categorised as C. R.Z.-II.

(ii) The distance from the H. T. L. of Bay of Bengal to the building is more than 500m as below :-

(a) The distance from the H. T. L. mark C. N. 21 (farthest from construction site) is 589.0 m.

(b) The distance from H. T. L. mark C. N. 20 (nearer to the construction site) is 509.0 m.

(iii) The distance from the H. T. L. of Adyar river to the construction site is 9.6 m.

With regard to the third query, it is further mentioned that the multi-storeyed building under construction falls under C. R. Z. as it is located 9.6 m distance (i.e.e well within 100 m) from the Adyar creek. It is also stated that there is an earthen road to a width of 5.60 meters, separating the compound wall of the building and the Adyar creek. As per the C. R. Z. Notification 1991, in C. R. Z.-II areas, construction of building is permissible only on the landward side of the road/authorised structures. It was also informed that the said road between Adyar river and the construction site is the subject matter in W. P. No. 8030 of 2000 before this Court. therefore, the report of the expert body like I.I. T. and the Tamil Nadu State Coastal Zone Management Authority demolishes the substratum of the case set up by the appellant that the construction activity is being carried on within the prohibited distance of Adyar river. The report of the expert body establishes beyond doubt the fact that the construction site is located well beyond 500 metres of H. T. L., namely, 589 meters from the construction site to H. T. L., namely, upto Bay of Bengal, and the distance from the H.T.L. mark C. N. 20 (near to the construction site) is 509 metres. It has also been found that the construction has been put up in C. R. Z.-II area where the construction is permissible on the landward side of the road /authorised construction and that it was found that there is earthen road to a width of 5.60 metres separating the compound wall of the building in question and the Adyar creek, as already noticed. The existence of the road is also certified by the competent authority, namely, the Tahsildar of Mylapore Triplicane Taluk, as per his letter dated 7-5-1997 (vide- page 57 of the typed set of papers in W. A. No. 1291 of 1997). The existence of the road having been confirmed by the competent authorities, it is not for this court to make a roving enquiry on the same in the present proceedings. In our considered opinion there is no reason to doubt the bona fides of the report of the competent authorities including that of the Tahsildar regarding the existence of the road. None of the respondents including the state of Tamil Nadu nor the C. M. D. A. nor the Corporation of Chennai have disputed the existence of the road in question. the letter of the Tahsildar dated 7-5-1997 establishes the fact that the said road has been used as a public passage for several years prior to the coming into force of C.R.Z. Notification of the year 1991. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding unequivodally that there is a road in existence separating the compound wall of the building in question and the Adyar creek. In this connection, our attention was drawn to a Division Bench decision of this Court in W. A. No. 1287 of 1995 rendered by M. Srinivasan, and S. S. Subramani, JJ (as their Lordships then were), in which, it has been categorically held that the construction of the building can be permitted on the landward side of an existing road and of an existing structure. Further, this Court held that it has necessarily to look into the intent behind the C. R. Z. Notification, whether the area is a developed one and when the area is a developed one with all infrastructural facilities and when already buildings have sprung up, the interference of the Court is not called for. As a matter of fact, it is pointed out that the area where the construction activity has taken place, is booming with developmental activities and several constructions have taken place therein in the form of construction of residential quarters for Ministers and other Government officials, including the construction of residential quarters for the members of the Legislative Assembly, etc. We are told that already the Government have granted an extent of 45.45 acres of land situate in Adyar creek area to be converted as Ambedkar Memorial. The position of the builder is better insofar as it does not form part of the creek, as borne out by the records, but is an independent patta land situate at a high level beyond the prohibited distance and separated by a road, as already noticed. The challenge against the aforesaid judgment, namely, judgment in W. A. No. 1287 of 1995 was unsuccessful before the Apex Court. That apart, the said Division Bench judgment has been confirmed subsequently by another Division Bench of this Court comprising M. S. Liberhan, C. J., and D. Raju, J. in W. P. No. 1569 of 1997, dated 4-9-1997. In the later judgment, this Court found that under the Coastal Zone Management Plan for Chennai Metropolitan area, which was approved on 27-9-1996, the entire coastal stretch from Ennore to Thiruvanmiyur has been classified as C. R. A.-II, which bring within its fold even areas on the outskirts of Chennai. This Court again emphasised that construction could be permitted in developed area as per C. R. Z. prescriptions. There could be no controversy that the area in question is a developed area. since it belongs to C. R. Z.-II classification and since the activity is beyond the prohibited distance and is separated by a road, as already noticed, we have no doubt in our mind that the construction activity is permissible in the eye of law and none of the objections raised by the appellant against the aforesaid construction is liable to be countenanced.

9. Of course, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the proposed building is within the prohibited distance and as such, the construction is illegal and objectionable. He also questions the very existence of the road. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the aforesaid contention, we are afraid, we cannot give our stamp of approval to the same. In this connection, we have to take note of the fact that the entire question has been examined by two expert bodies including the Expert Committee constituted under the environment (Protection) Act, 1986, namely, the Tamil Nadu State Coastal Zone Management Authority, who have categorically stated that the construction in question is beyond 500 metres from the H.T.L., in which case, the construction will be perfectly legal. Being an expert body, it can be presumed to know the nature and character of the problem it has to tackle and the decision arrived at by such a body is not liable to be casually interfered with by this Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless a patent error was pointed out. No such error could be suggested by the appellant. Besides, in matter of this nature, it may not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction for this Court to substitute its own judgment to that of an expert body, particularly, in the highly technical field, demanding scientific skill and expertise. The scope of enquiry by this court is extremely limited. At this juncture, we may hasten to add that the findings arrived at by the expert body are not liable to be impeached by this Court at the drop of the hat, since this Court is not expected to sit in judgment over the reports of the expert bodies, particularly in the light of the fact that those are all facts which are not within the realm of judicially manageable standards. Accordingly, we repel the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant and accept the report of the expert bodies and hold that the construction in question is beyond 500 meters from H. T. L., and not hit by C. R. Z. Regulations or Notification. The same analogy will apply to the argument of learned counsel for the appellant against the existence of the road, which has been duly found to be in existence by the letter of the Tahsildar, as already noticed, which also is not liable to be impeached in these proceedings.

10. That apart, in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, it will be preposterous for this court to give a finding as to the non-existence of a road, which will have serious civil consequences, particularly, when no statutory authority has chosen to question the grant of planning permission on the ground of non-exstence of the road by disbelieving the letter of the Tahsildar.

11. Yet another fact which militates against any relief being granted to the appellant is the inordinate delay and laches on the part of the appellant in invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. In W. A. No. 1287 of 1995 (noted supra), it is pertinent to note that even though only a minimum extent of construction was completed, the Division Bench of this Court has rendered a finding that the appellants therein are guilty of laches. When Special Leave Petition (S. L. P.) was filed before the Supreme Court, the same was also dismissed. As regards the present case, it is not disputed that the construction has reached a considerable extent even on the date on which the appellant has chosen to approach this Court. The appellant is aware of the construction activities taking place during September 1995 and the appellant had chosen to move this Court by way of filing a writ petition more than a year after the construction had commenced. As such, we have no hesitation in holding that the appellant is guilty of laches.

12. Of course, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the construction was commenced by the builder notwithstanding the condition in the planning permission that it should be commenced only after obtaining the Building Permit from the Corporation of Chennai. The said contention was rejected even by the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 14823 of 1997. In this context, we find that the Planning Permission granted by the C. M. D. A. was to be effective for a period of three years under the provisions of Ss. 49 and 50 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. Further, the Corporation itself had been a party to the decision making process of the C. M. D. A. in the grant of Planning Permission with its Chief Engineer having been a member of the Multistorey Building Panel constituted under the Development Control Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. It was the Chief Engineer of the Corporation of Chennai who had found that the plan could be approved and the planning Permission was accordingly granted finally by the C. M. D. A., that too, after confirming that the land to an extent of 2.321 Sq. M. have been gifted to the Corporation of Chennai to be utilised as "open space reservation area" and the Corporation confirming the taking possession of the lands in January 1996. therefore, we find no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard and reject the same as has been rightly done by the learned single Judge.

13. Towards the fag end of the hearing , the appellant filed W. M. P. No. 25836 of 2001 for a direction to the Director, National Remote Sensing Agency, Balan Nagar, Hyderabad to submit a report of the existence of road/ path prior to 1991 with reference to the maps produced by the appellant. For the said purpose, the appellant simply obtained a satellite map dated 7-9-1991 and also a map dated 21-4-1994 in addition to a spot map of the year 1989. The said direction petition was opposed by the builder, and in our opinion, rightly so, stating that the attempt of the appellant is only to have a roving enquiry in the matter. Once the existence of the road is categorically established by the letter of the Tahsildar and the same is not disputed by the various authorities, where is the question of the matter being re-agistated over again by the aid of a satellite photograph In the light of the various facts with regard to the existence of the road, which is on record, and which has not been impeached or questioned by any of the statutory authorities, the attempt of the appellant to establish the non-existence of the road at this belated stage is highly misconceived and is an abuse of process of Court. We had occasion to see the satellite map produced by the appellant and on a perusal of the map, even the major roads in the city of Chennai are not visible in the said map. On mere assumptions, the appellant cannot, at this belated stage, seek to raise wholly irrelevant issue and question the existence of the road through these proceedings. A similar belated attempt was also turned down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Goa Foundation, Goa v. Diksha Holdings Pvt. Ltd., (Paragraph 11), wherein, the Apex Court had held that the appellants therein had utterly failed to establish by referring to any authenticated material that there was any infraction of any of the provisions of C. R. Z. in granting environmental clearance to the project in question in Goa. The position is no less different here. Admittedly, the Planning Permission has already been granted and the construction is nearing completion. therefore, the appellant without producing any authenticated material, cannot seek the indulgence of this Court in this direction petition based on certain bare assumptions.

Accordingly, we reject the prayer of the appellant for the direction in W. M. P. No. 25836 of 2001 and the same is accordingly dismissed.

14. Before parting with this judgment, we may observe that while the Courts have social accountability in the matter of protection of environment, there should be a proper balance between the same and development activities, which are essential for progress. There can be no dispute that the society has to prosper, but it shall not be at the expense of environment. In the like vein, the environment shall have to be protected, but not at the cost of the development of the society. both the development and environment shall co-exist and go hand in-hand. Therefore, a balance has to be struck and administrative actions ought to proceed in accordance therewith, and not dehors the same.

15. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find no scope for interference in these writ appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the writ appeals based on our findings that the construction activity is perfectly legal and is not hit by the C. R. Z. Regulations, etc., the various reliefs sought for by the petitioner in W. P. No. 8030 of 2000 are not liable to be granted. Accordingly, we dismiss W. P. No. 8030 of 2000.

16. In the result, we confirm the orders of the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 14823 of 1997 and W. P. No. 15471 of 1997 and dismiss both the writ appeals, namely, W. A. No. 1663 of 1997 and W. A. No. 1291 of 1997, and the writ petition, namely, W. P. No. 8030 of 2000. No costs. Consequently, C. M. P. Nos. 15015 and 15016 of 1997 and 10381 of 2001 and W. M. P. Nos. 11746 and 12162 of 2000 are closed.

Order accordingly.