Quashed

Natanmai Thirumalai Pillai Annathana Chatra Tharmam v. The Commissioner

Madras HC2 Sept 2024WP(MD)/20869/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an eviction notice issued by a Municipality under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, holding that the mandatory procedure of issuing a show-cause notice and granting seven days for explanation was not followed. The authorities were directed to strictly follow the prescribed procedure.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 12.07.2024 is quashed.

Natanmai Thirumalai Pillai Annathana Chatra Tharmam Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.20869 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.09.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.20869 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.17681 and 17688 of 2024

¶8

Natanmai Thirumalai Pillai Annathana Chatra Tharmam, Rep. By its President, N.Thirumalai Karpagam (M/63), S/o.T.K.Natarajan (Late), No.66, Ranger Office Road, Cumbum Town, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

-vs-

¶11

The Commissioner, Cumbum Municipality, Theni District. ... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned notice dated 12.07.2024, under proceedings of reference Na.Ka. 1522/2017/F1, issued by the respondent and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Anandha Padmanabhan, Senior Counsel For M/s.APN Law Associates For Respondent : Mr.K.Hema Karthikeyan Standing Counsel

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 1 of 4_

¶15

W.P.(MD) No.20869 of 2024

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]

¶18

Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan, learned counsel, takes notice for the

¶19

respondent. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶20

2.Challenge is to the order made under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, dated 12.07.2024.

¶21

3.Evidently, the procedure prescribed under the said provision has not been followed. Section 128 requires a show cause notice has to be issued, granting seven days time to the alleged encroacher to give an explanation and any explanation received within the time, should be considered by the authority before passing the order of eviction.

¶22

4.The learned counsel for the Municipality would submit that the said procedure was not followed. He would require us to treat the impugned notice as show cause notice.

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 2 of 4_

¶24

W.P.(MD) No.20869 of 2024

¶25

5.We do not think we should encourage these kind of orders by treating them as show cause notice. When the law is very clear and it provides for a particular procedure for removal of encroachment, we cannot accept any deviation there from.

¶26

6.Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 12.07.2024, is quashed. It is open to the authorities to resort eviction strictly in accordance with procedure prescribed under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶27

[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]

¶28

02.09.2024

¶29

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes Mrn

¶30

¶31

The Commissioner, Cumbum Municipality, Theni District.

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 3 of 4_

¶33

W.P.(MD) No.20869 of 2024

¶34

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶35

Mrn

¶36

W.P.(MD) No.20869 of 2024

¶37

02.09.2024

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 4 of 4_

Natanmai Thirumalai Pillai Annathana Chatra Tharmam v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Natanmai Thirumalai Pillai Annathana Chatra Tharmam v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Ravisekaran Vs Dr.v.P.Jeyaseelan IAS

P.Kumar Vs v.Rajaraman IAS

The Director Vs Theertha Jayakrishnan

R.Boominathan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

S.Mary Stellabai Vs The District Collector

Jerin Jenila Vs The District Collector