Advertisement
The Madras High Court has fined J Kumaragurubaran, Commissioner of the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC), INR 1 lakh for inaction against unauthorized construction in the Royapuram zone. This follows a contempt petition alleging the corporation's failure to comply with a 2022 court order. The court criticized GCC for insufficient efforts, noting a discrepancy between over 6,000 notices issued and only 242 buildings sealed since 2022. The fine, to be deducted from the Commissioner's salary and sent to Adyar Cancer Institute, underscores the court's stance on enforcing regulations and holding officials accountable for inaction.
The Madras High Court has recently imposed a financial penalty on a city commissioner in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. This action stems from a contempt petition filed against the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC), alleging inaction regarding unauthorized construction, and holding the civic body accountable. Advertisement
The court imposed a fine of INR 1 lakh on J Kumaragurubaran, the Commissioner of the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC). The state government has been directed to deduct this amount from the Commissioner's salary and deposit it into the account of the Adyar Cancer Institute. This penalty arose during a hearing concerning a contempt petition filed by advocate N Rukmanganthan.
The petition alleged that the corporation failed to comply with a court order from April 8, 2022, which directed the removal of illegal constructions in Zone 5, Royapuram. During a hearing on April 26, the bench, comprising Chief Justice K R Sriram and Justice Sundar Mohan, stated that the GCC's efforts against illegal buildings and unauthorized constructions in Chennai were not sufficient.
The court specifically noted that Commissioner Kumaragurubaran allegedly held details about notices issued, responses received, and subsequent actions taken, including demolitions. The court highlighted a discrepancy- between January 1, 2022, and February 12, 2025, 4,115 stop-work notices and 1,966 lock and seal notices were issued, totaling over 6,000 notices. However, only 242 buildings were actually locked and sealed during this period. The Commissioner reportedly failed to explain this difference.
The court also clarified that regularizing the absence of a fire NOC (No-Objection Certificate) is not possible. It asserted that any alterations or combinations of spaces that impede fire safety, such as a garden blocking fire brigade access, must be removed and corrected. The judges stated their intent to use this case as an example for all buildings and high-rises.
5th Jun, 2025
25th May, 2023
11th May, 2023
27th Apr, 2023
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
