Petitioner challenged municipal show cause notices concerning his building without replying to them. The court held the notice was only a show cause notice requiring explanation and declined to entertain the writ petition prematurely.
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.(MD) No.21326 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.P.(MD) No.21326 of 2024 and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.18066 to 18068 of 2024
C.Balasubramanian
... Petitioner
-vs-
4.K.V.Krishnasamy ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned notice A-2/001051/2019, dated 12.06.2024, issued by the second respondent and consequential notice in A-2/001051/2019, dated 19.07.2024, issued by the 3rd respondent under Tamil Nadu Urban Bodies Act, 1988, in respect of Door No.15, Thennolaikara Street, Madurai -1 and quash the same and thereby, revised building plan by petitioner on receipt
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 1 of 4_
W.P.(MD) No.21326 of 2024
of such fee.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Manohar For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.K.Sivabalan, Standing Counsel
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]
Mr.K.Sivabalan, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3. Since we are not passing any adverse order, notice to the 4th respondent is deemed unnecessary. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2.Reading of the impugned notice dated 19.07.2024, reveals that it is only a show cause notice. The petitioner was required to give his explanation as to why action should not be taken under Section 135(6) of Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1988. The petitioner has rushed to the Court without even giving a reply.
3.We therefore, do not see any reason to entertain the Writ Petition. At the same time, we permit the petitioner to give a reply to the notice dated 19.07.2024, within a period of 10 days from today. If any such reply is given, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders as provided under law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 2 of 4_
W.P.(MD) No.21326 of 2024
4.The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observation. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]
06.09.2024
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes Mrn
To
2.The Assistant Commissioner, Zone 4 (South), Madurai Corporation, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 3 of 4_
W.P.(MD) No.21326 of 2024
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Mrn
W.P.(MD) No.21326 of 2024
06.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 4 of 4_
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition could be entertained against an un-answered show cause notice issued under Section 135(6) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1988.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
C.Balasubramanian
The Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation
The Assistant Commissioner, Zone 4 (South), Madurai Corporation
Town Planning Officer, Madurai Corporation
K.V.Krishnasamy
R.Subramanian
L.Victoria Gowri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
