The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a stay on sealing of premises by the Corporation. The Court held that granting protection during the pendency of a regularisation application for illegal construction would encourage illegality.
Petitioner's prayer for forbearing locking/sealing of premises was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.36120 of 2024
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.12.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.P.No.36120 of 2024 and
W.M.P.No.39013 of 2024
B.Murugan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1/6
W.P.No.36120 of 2024
5.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Unit 29, Division – 127, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai.
6.R.S.Madhavan
...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 to 5 herein from locking and/ or sealing the premises at Door No.2/4, Jai Nagar 6th Street, Jai Nagar, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 106 during the pendency of the application for regularization under Section 113-C.
For Petitioner : Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi, Senior Counsel For Mr.L.Palannimuthu For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh, Additional Government Pleader
For 2nd Respondent: Mr.C.Manoharan, CMDA
For Respondents 3 to 5 : Mr.Arun Babu for Corporation
2/6
W.P.No.36120 of 2024
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. )
The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from locking and sealing the premises during the pendency of the application under Section 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act [for brevity 'the Act'].
2. The very application under Section 113-C of the Act was filed to regularize illegal construction which was made without obtaining sanctioned plan. If we are to give protection to the petitioner till such time the application under Section 113-C of the Act is disposed of, we are only encouraging the person, who is indulged in illegality. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant for encouraging such illegalities. We find such cases are on rise in the recent past. We are to blame ourselves for having invited such situation by showing undue indulgence to the violators.
3/6
W.P.No.36120 of 2024
3. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed . No costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.M., J.) (C.K., J.) 03.12.2024
dsa
Index : No Neutral Citation : No Speaking order
4/6
W.P.No.36120 of 2024
To
5/6
W.P.No.36120 of 2024
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
dsa
W.P.No.36120 of 2024
03.12.2024
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should grant relief forbearing the respondents from locking and sealing the petitioner's premises during the pendency of regularisation under Section 113-C when the construction
2 provisions across 2 enactments
B.Murugan
The Additional Secretary (Technical), Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai
The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai
The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai
The Executive Engineer, Zone – X, Greater Chennai Corporation, Kodambakkam
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Unit 29, Division – 127, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai
R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.KUMARAPPAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
