Coimbatore Corporation, it appears, has been interpreting law or court orders to suit its convenience, sometimes even when it goes against the State Government’s rules.
The latest instance of such action from the Corporation is the letter Commissioner Sravan Kumar Jatavath wrote to the Tangedco’s Coimbatore Distribution Circle asking it to consider the property tax assessment as the building completion certificate. The Commissioner’s letter ultra vires the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, which directs the Tangedco to issue power connection only to buildings with completion certificate.
For residential buildings measuring up to 7,000 sq.ft. the Rules say that the certificate is not required, and for those that measure more the Local Planning Authority should issue a certificate. Therefore, the Commissioner is outside his authority in asking the Tangedco to equate tax assessment with the certificate, source say.
In another instance of interpreting law or court orders to suit its convenience, the Corporation under Mr. Jatavath undid what his predecessor K. Vijayakarthikeyan did to cancel the agreement with an advertising agency allowing digital advertisements on 30 boards across the city.
The reason the Corporation had cited for the cancellation in January 2019 was that the agency had violated the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Licensing of Hoardings and Levy of Advertisement Tax Rules, 2003, various court orders and against the Indian Road Congress norms.
After proffering a few reasons to justify the Corporation’s reversal in decision, Mr. Jatavath referred to a case between the advertising agency and Tangedco – the agency had moved the court against Tangedco’s refusal to give power connection to the digital advertisement boards citing absence of approval from District Collector – to say that since it was the Coimbatore Smart City Limited that had floated tender for the erection of the 30 boards, the Collector’s approval was not necessary.
In this instance too, the Corporation had usurped the powers of the District Collector as the latter issued only licenses for advertisements and not no-objection certificates.
As a result of Mr. Jatavath reversing the earlier decision, the city has 30 digital boards that display advertisement and at places where it should not be, as per various Madras High Court orders and Indian Road Congress norms.
In interpreting law to deny information to activists under the Right to Information Act there are umpteen examples, says activist S.P. Thiyagarajan.
Citing a stay order the Madras High Court had issued in a court case filed by a contractors’ association, the Corporation not only denies information to petitioners but also the opportunity to view the files containing the information.
The order prevented the Corporation from disclosing information related to contractors. But the Corporation cites it to justify not giving details on council resolutions or even the number of resolutions or even the money it has spent on vehicle maintenance, he adds.
