Madras High Court Hears Writ Petitions Challenging Planning Permission for Multi-Storey Hospital Building Near Convent Campus. Petitioners Seek to Quash CMDA Permission to Ensure Safety of Life and Property.

High Court: Madras High Court Bench: Principal
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Judicature at Madras under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by two congregations of the Regular Tertiary Franciscan Sisters of Our Lady of Bon Secours. The petitioners challenged a planning permission granted by the third respondent, the Chief Executive Officer of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA), on 23.02.2024 bearing reference OL-PP/HRB/0004/2024, Permit No.OL-00773. The permission was granted to the sixth respondent, MGM Health Care Pvt. Ltd., for construction of a building. The petitioners sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the planning permission, alleging that the construction of the hospital building by the sixth respondent posed a threat to the life and safety of persons and properties within the petitioner campus. The matter was heard by a Division Bench consisting of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekar. The State of Tamil Nadu, the Greater Chennai Corporation, the CMDA, the District Collector, the Commissioner of Police, and the hospital company were arrayed as respondents. The court heard submissions from Dr. Father Xavier Arul Raj, Senior Counsel for the petitioners, and the respective counsel for the respondents. However, the available judgment text only includes the cause title, prayer, and appearances; the court's analysis, reasoning, and final decision are not provided. Therefore, no further particulars regarding the outcome are available.

Issue of Consideration

W.P.Nos.8123 & 8115 of 2025

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 115

W.P.Nos.8123 & 8115 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.9086, 9089 & 9091 of 2025

2025-03-28

S.M. Subramaniam, K. Rajasekar

Dr. Father Xavier Arul Raj, Senior Counsel for M/s. Father Xavier Associates (for petitioners); Mrs. E. Ranga Nayaki, Additional Government Pleader (for R1 and R4); Mr. P. Kumaresan, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. D.B.R. Prabhu, Standing Counsel for R2 and Mr. C. Manoharan / Mr. R. Thamaraiselvan, Standing Counsel for R3; Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor (for R5); Mr. Abishek Janasenan (for R6)

Congregation of the Regular Tertiary Franciscan Sisters of Our Lady of Bon Secours (in W.P.No.8123/2025) and Regular Tertiary Franciscan Sisters of Our Lady of Bon Secours-Society No.I (in W.P.No.8115/2025)

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development; 2. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation; 3. The Chief Executive Officer, The CMDA; 4. The District Collector, Chennai; 5. Commissioner of Police, Chennai; 6. MGM Health Care Pvt. Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash a planning permission granted for construction of a hospital building.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of planning permission dated 23.02.2024 in OL-PP/HRB/0004/2024, Permit No.OL-00773 issued by the CMDA, and to ensure life and safety of persons and properties in the petitioner campus.

Filing Reason

The construction of the 6th respondent's building allegedly threatens the life and safety of persons and properties in the petitioner campus.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under MPDA Act for Non-Application of Mind. Detaining Authority Failed to Independently Consider Grounds, Leading to Mechanical Affirmation of Proposal.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal in Family Court Matter Due to Non-Maintainability Under Section 19 Family Courts Act, 1984. Appeal lies only against judgment and order, not against decree, and once decree is issued proceedings attain finality.