M.Sellappan Vs the District Collector

An 'order dated 23.07.2025 bearing reference F.No.51-32/AEII/JE-3/OM/2022-23' made by third respondent (hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity) has been assailed.

¶27

Impugned order has been made under Section 416 of The Pondicherry Municipalities Act, 1973 and it is an appealable order. Appeal provision is Section 420, which reads as follows:

¶28

'420.Appeal.- (1) An appeal shall lie from every order of the Commissioner made in respect of any municipal premises under section 416 or Section 418 to an appellate officer who shall be the District Judge or any other Judge not below the rank of a Subordinate Judge as may be specified by him in his behalf.

¶29

Page Nos.2/6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.33667 of 2025

¶32

(2) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be preferred, ---

¶33

(a) in the case of an appeal from an order under section 416, within fifteen days from the date of publication of the order under sub-section (1) of that section; and

¶34

(b) in the case of an appeal from an order under section 418, within fifteen days from the date on which the order is communicated to the appellant;

¶35

Provided that the appellate officer may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.

¶36

(3) Where an appeal is preferred from an order of the Commissioner, the appellate officer may stay the enforcement of that order for such period and on such conditions as he deems fit.

¶37

(4) Every appeal under this section shall be disposed of by the appellate officer as expeditiously as possible.

¶38

(5) The cost of any appeal under this section shall be in the discretion of the appellate officer.'

¶39

A careful reading of the appeal provision makes it clear that there is a provision for Condonation of Delay (CoD) as well as provision for stay of enforcement. There is no material to demonstrate that alternate remedy is not efficacious or effective.

¶40

Page Nos.3/6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.33667 of 2025

¶43

Faced with the above situation, learned counsel sought leave

¶44

of this Court to withdraw the captioned WP but made a plea to preserve all the rights and contentions of writ petitioner to prefer appeal before the jurisdictional Court with CoD and stay prayers. Learned counsel has made an endorsement in the case file and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:

¶45

It is made clear that if writ petitioner resorts to alternate

¶46

remedy and files an appeal, it is open to the writ petitioner to raise all the points in the appeal including the points raised in the captioned WP and the appellate Court shall consider the same on its own merits and

¶47

Page Nos.4/6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.No.33667 of 2025

¶50

in accordance with law (including CoD and stay petition, if any) untrammelled by instant order of withdrawal.

¶51

Captioned WP is disposed of as closed/withdrawn albeit with

¶52

preservation of rights and observations in the aforesaid manner. Consequently, captioned Writ Miscellaneous Petition (WMP) thereat is disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

(M.S.,J.) (M.S.K.,J.) 04.09.2025

¶54

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No mmi

¶55

To

¶56