Disposal of building deviation disputes pending appellate authority's fresh consideration of revised planning permission.

Dr. O. Chandran (Petitioner in W.P. 9415/2021) obtained planning permission in 2018 for a building in Usilampatti.

Allegations of deviations led him to file a revised plan and retention application under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

Firnaz Bavazir filed a Public Interest Litigation (W.P. 25143/2024) alleging building violations and seeking compliance for running a hospital.

The revised planning application was initially rejected and the subsequent appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on grounds of delay.

However, on 20.07.2026, a learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.20471 of 2026 condoned the delay and remitted the matter to the appellate authority for a fresh hearing on merits.

1. Whether the Court should issue a Mandamus regarding the revised plan and building deviations while the matter is pending before the statutory appellate authority.

2. Whether the Public Interest Litigation regarding building violations remains maintainable in light of the remand order passed by the Single Judge.

The Court primarily considered Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, which governs applications for permission and revision.

It adhered to the principle of judicial restraint, holding that when a statutory appellate authority is seized of a matter, the High Court should avoid passing orders that might influence or "hamper" the fair and impartial exercise of that authority's discretion.

The Court noted that the core of the dispute—the legality of the building deviations and the revised plan—is currently subject to a fresh consideration by the statutory appellate authority following a remand order by a Single Judge.

The Division Bench reasoned that since the outcome of those proceedings will determine the legality of the structure, the present Writ Petitions seeking Mandamus and PIL reliefs have become redundant.

To prevent any prejudice or "hamper" on the mind of the appellate authority, the Court determined that the executive body should be allowed to proceed independently and impartially as per the directions issued in the related Writ Petition (W.P. 20471 of 2026).

The Court directed the first appellate authority to comply with the directions issued in W.P.(MD)No.20471 of 2026 to hear the matter on merits.

All connected miscellaneous petitions, including impleading applications, were closed as redundant.

No costs were awarded.