VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2025 › High Court of Madras

P.Ranjithkumar v. The District Collector

DISPOSED OF
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
12 February 2025
Bench
M. Sundarauthor, S Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi
Case no.
WP 4717/2025

Follow Madras High CourtFollow M. SundarFollow S Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi

Judgment

ORDER [made by K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.] With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal in the Admission Board itself.

¶2This writ petition has been filed challenging the notices all dated

20.01.2025

all

bearing

reference Na.Ka.No.000365/2025/H1/S issued by the second respondent.

¶3The impugned notices which direct removal of encroachment are challenged essentially on two grounds, viz., (i) the second respondent lacks the authority to issue the impugned notices and (ii) the writ petitioners were not show caused before the impugned notices came to be issued. Page Nos.3/6

¶4This Court finds merit and substance in the aforesaid two grounds, for, as per Section 128(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, it is only the Commissioner who has authority to remove any immovable structure after issuance of a show cause notice for such removal and upon receipt of a representation within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of show cause notice by the noticee. The term "Commissioner" is defined under Section 2(7), ibid. and the said provision is extracted below for ready reference: '2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) "Commissioner" means--

(a) in relation to a Municipal Corporation and Municipal Council, the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation or Municipal Council, as the case may be;

(b) in relation to a Town Panchayat, the Executive Officer of the Town Panchayat.

¶5Concededly, in the instant case, the impugned notices have been issued not by the Commissioner but by the Urban Planning Officer, Coimbatore Municipal Corporation (R2). Page Nos.4/6

¶6It is also an admitted fact that prior to issuance of the impugned notices, the writ petitioners have not been show caused.

¶7Therefore, solely on the aforesaid two grounds, the impugned notices are set aside, however, with liberty to the authority concerned, viz., the third respondent, to issue show cause notices to the writ petitioners and any representation received from the writ petitioners shall be considered before final orders are passed. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected W.M.P. stands closed. There shall be order as to costs. (M.S., J.) (K.G.T., J.)

12.02.2025 cad Index : NC : Page Nos.5/6

M.SUNDAR, J.

K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J. cad To

¶1The District Collector Coimbatore District Coimbatore

¶2The Urban Planning Officer Corporation of Coimbatore Coimbatore

¶3The Commissioner Corporation of Coimbatore Coimbatore

¶4The District Revenue Officer O/o the District Collector Coimbatore

¶5The Tahsildar Peru Taluk Coimbatore

12.02.2025 Page Nos.6/6

Case details

Parties and counsel

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.02.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI W.P. No.4717 of 2025 and W.M.P. No.5237 of 2025 1. P. Ranjithkumar 2. Muniammal 3. M. Mythili 4. N. Sukumar 5. Menagadevi 6. Anand 7. M. Arul Kumar 8. R. Pattieshwari 9. Saravanan 10. P. Vellingiri 11. Ranganathan 12. Saravanan 13. M. Suganya 14. Manikandan Page Nos.1/6 15. Nithiya 16. Kavitha 17. Hemalatha 18. Shanmugam Petitioners vs. 1. The District Collector Coimbatore District Coimbatore 2. The Urban Planning Officer Corporation of Coimbatore Coimbatore 3. The Commissioner Corporation of Coimbatore Coimbatore 4. The District Revenue Officer O/o the District Collector Coimbatore 5. The Tahsildar Peru Taluk Coimbatore Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for records of the second and third respondents leading to issuance of notices dated 20.01.2025 in Na.Ka.No.000365/2025/H1/S and quash the same and issue a consequential direction restraining the second and third respondents, their men, their agents and anyone claiming under them from permanently demolishing the residential houses situated at MGR Nagar, Muthiya Udaiyar Street, Thelugupalayam, Coimbatore 641 039. Page Nos.2/6 For petitioners Mr. R. Abdul Mubeen for Mr. R. Nandha Kumar For RR 1,4 & 5 Mr. T.K. Saravanan Additional Government Pleader For RR 2 & 3 Mr. D. Ferdinand Standing Counsel

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.