Rithish Kumar Vs Principal Secretary

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3 to act as per the order issued by the Tamil Nadu Local Body Ombudsman dated 28.11.2022 and to take immediate action for the removal of the illegal construction and encroachment made by Mr.Balakrishnan at No.53, Vinayagapuram Main Street, Tondairpet, Chennai - 600 081, direct the respondents to take disciplinary action against the officials responsible for allowing such unauthorized construction, as directed by the Hon'ble Tamil Nadu Local Government Ombudsman in Petition No.194/Ma/2022 within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.Hemanaag.I

¶25

For Respondents : Mr.M.Elumalai for Mr.A.C.Manibharathi Standing counsel for Greater Chennai Corporation

¶26

Page Nos.2/8

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.No.28657 of 2025

¶29

ORDER

¶30

[Order of the Court made by M.SUNDAR, J.]

¶31

Captioned 'Writ Petition' ['WP' for the sake of brevity] is predicated on an 'order dated 28.11.2022 bearing reference Miz vz;: 194 ⁄ kh ⁄2022 made by an Ombudsman under 'the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Ombudsman Act, 2014' [hereinafter 'said Act' for the sake of brevity], which came into force on and from 13.11.2024' {hereinafter 'said order' for the sake of convenience}.

¶32

Learned counsel adverting to said order submits that there is indifference on the part of appropriate authority in implementing said order wherein Ombudsman has come to the conclusion that there is encroachment to an extent of 200 sq.ft in a 'Greater Chennai Corporation' ['GCC'] land in Zone 4.

¶33

Issue notice.

¶34

4.M.Elumalai, learned counsel representing Mr.A.C.Manibharathi,

¶35

learned Standing counsel for GCC accepts notice for all five respondents and submits that implementation by appropriate authority is in the anvil.

¶36

Page Nos.3/8

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.No.28657 of 2025

¶39

As regards said Act, Section 16 is the Rule making power and in exercise of Rule making power, Government of Tamil Nadu has made 'the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Ombudsman (Manner of Filing, Inquiry and Disposal of Companies) Rules, 2015' [hereinafter 'said Rules' for the sake of brevity], which came into force on and from 28.09.2025.

¶40

Rule 12 deals with implementation and it is captioned 'Implementation of the order of the Ombudsman'. Rule 12 of said Rules reads as follows:

¶41

'12. Implementation of the order of the Ombudsman .- All the parties to the complaint and other persons to whom a direction was issued by Ombudsman in his/her order, as the case may be, are liable to implement the order of the Ombudsman. In case of nonimplementation, severe action shall be taken by the competent authorities against those who fail to implement the orders of the Ombudsman, on a reference made by the Ombudsman.'

¶42

Adverting to aforesaid Rule 12, Mr.M.Elumalai, learned counsel representing the Standing counsel for GCC submits that the Commissioner of GCC is the Competent Authority vide Rule 12 of said Rules. Therefore, we suo motu implead the Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Building, Chennai - 600 003 as Sixth Respondent and Mr.M.Elumalai, learned counsel representing Mr.A.C.Manibharathi, learned

¶43

Page Nos.4/8

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P.No.28657 of 2025

¶46

Standing counsel for GCC accepts notice for Sixth Respondent also.

¶47

Learned Standing counsel for GCC submitted that action of competent authority is in the anvil and the same will be commenced as expeditiously as the business of Sixth Respondent permits but in any event within four weeks from today i.e., on or before 01.09.2025. This submission is recorded as an undertaking given to this Court by Sixth Respondent.

¶48

Though obvious we make it clear for the sake of specificity that when action is commenced in the aforesaid manner by Sixth Respondent, all the rights and contentions of the alleged encroachers qua said order stand preserved. In other words, this order will not impact the rights of person proceeded against by sixth respondent and rights of sixth respondent (if any) will stand preserved.

¶49