M.Saravanan Vs The Commissioner

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records pertaining to the impugned order vide proceedings in Ka.Ma. No. 082/CP/24-25/0010053 dated 24.01.2025 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent to grant Building Plan Approval for the construction in Plot Nos. 13 and 14 situated in S.F.No.44/1J in Inam Karur Village, Karur Taluk, Karur District.

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

W.P(MD)No.29156 of 2025

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Saravanan Senior Counsel for Mr.A.N.Ramanathan For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam Govt. Advocate (for R2)

¶20

Mr.K.Balasubramani (for R1)

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Ka.Ma.No.082/CP/24-25/0010053 dated 24.01.2025, and to quash the same as illegal, and consequently direct the first respondent to grant Building Plan Approval for the proposed construction in Plot Nos.13 and 14, S.F.No.44/1J, Inam Karur Village, Karur Taluk, Karur District.

¶23

Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent, and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent. Perused the records.

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

W.P(MD)No.29156 of 2025

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is a non-speaking order, containing only a one-line rejection without assigning any reason, and therefore is violative of the principles of natural justice.

¶28

The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner's plots are situated beneath the Electric Overhead Power Line (Tower Line) and that construction in such areas is prohibited as per the relevant building regulations and the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019.

¶29

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent supported the stand of the first respondent.

¶30

On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 24.01.2025, it is evident that the rejection has been made without any discussion of facts, legal provisions, or reference to the applicable building norms. Failure to record reasons renders an order arbitrary and non-speaking, and therefore, unsustainable in law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that reasoned orders are an indispensable part of natural justice. In the present case, the impugned order does not satisfy the requirement of a reasoned decision as mandated under the Rules. Accordingly, the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the first respondent in Ka.Ma.No.

¶31

3/5

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD)No.29156 of 2025

¶34

082/CP/24-25/0010053 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the first

¶35

respondent for fresh consideration. The first respondent is directed to process the petitioner’s application for building plan approval and pass a speaking order in accordance with law and the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

This writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

¶37

16.10.2025

¶38

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes skn

¶39

To

¶40

1.The Commissioner, Karur Municipal Corporation, Karur.

¶41

2.The Superintending Engineer (Operation), Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO), TNEB Complex, Near Collectorate, Tiruchirappalli.

¶42

4/5

¶43

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

¶44

W.P(MD)No.29156 of 2025

¶45

P.T.ASHA, J.

¶46

skn

¶47

Writ Petition(MD)No.29156 of 2025