VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

M.Pandian, v. The Commissioner

DISPOSED OF
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
24 July 2026
Bench
C.V. Karthikeyanauthor, R.Sakthivel
Case no.
WP(MD) 20672/2026

Judgment

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN) The writ petition had been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to proceedings of the 2nd respondent, Assistant Commissioner, Zone I, Trichy Municipal Corporation in F1/3119/2018(sri), dated on 25.06.2026 and to quash the same.

¶2In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been contended that the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the property at Old 5th ward, Trichy Fort, Vannapattarai Street on the eastern side, old 4th block, old TS No.95 measuring 952 sq. ft., having purchased the same by a sale deed dated 27.06.2017. It had been contended that their neighbour had earlier filed WP(MD) No.18424 of 2019 questioning the construction put up by the petitioners in the second floor. Thereafter in that writ petition, directions have been issued by this Court on 18.03.2024 and in consequent to that on 11.08.2025, a notice had been issued by the 2nd respondent under Sections 56 and 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, wherein, instructions were issued to the petitioners to remove the household belongings to make lock and seal. It had been stated that the petitioners were not given any opportunity of being heard before such notice had been issued. It had also been contended that the petitioners had given a representation seeking building plan approval by representation dated

01.12.2025.

¶3The first respondent may examine the representation dated

01.12.2025 and take a decision whether to grant approval to the building put up by the petitioners on the 2nd floor or not to grant such permission. Such decision is to be taken on or before 07.08.2026. The petitioners may also be heard and if hearing is to be granted, one day hearing may be granted on

03.08.2026. Thereafter the respondents, if they are still not satisfied, may issue fresh notice under Sections 56 and 57 of the said Act.

¶4In view of the fact that an opportunity is now granted, the impugned notice is kept in abeyance and a decision as to whether to reissue the same or to withdraw the same would be taken in accordance with the decision taken on 07.08.2026.

¶5The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction. Consequently, WMP(MD) NO.15324 and 15326 of 2026 stand allowed and WMP(MD) No.15328 of 2026 stands closed. No costs.

(C.V.K.,J.) (R.S.V,J.)

24.07.2026 RR C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J AND R.SAKTHIVEL, J RR WP.(MD)No.20672 of 2026

24.07.2026

Case details

Parties and counsel

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.07.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL WP.(MD)No.20672 of 2026 and WMP(MD) Nos.15324, 15326 and 15328 of 2026 1. M.Pandian, S/o. Muthukaruppan, Door No.103/32,Vanapattarai Street, Trichy-2, Trichy District. 2. P.Hemalatha, W/o.Pandian, Door No.103/32, Vanapattarai Street, Trichy-2, Trichy District. ... Petitioners - Vs. - 1. The Commissioner Trichirappalli City Municipal Corporation, Bharathidasan Salai, Cantonment, Trichy – 1, Trichy District. 2. The Assistant Commissioner Zone - I,, Trichirappalli City Municipal Corporation, Bharathidasan Salai, Cantonment, Trichy - 1, Trichy District. ... Respondents Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to 2nd respondent proceedings made in F1/3119/2018(sri), dated on 25.06.2026, quash the same and further direct the respondents to defer lock and seal proceedings till their building planning permission considered by the respondents. For Petitioners : M/s.R.Sundar For Respondents : Mr.Kishore Ram for RB Associates

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.