Dismissed¶29

P.Aadhilakshmi v. District collector

Madras HC3 Feb 2026WP/3133/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No. 3133 of 2026 (Madras High Court, 03-02-2026): maintainability of writ against notice under Section 28, Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001; certiorarified mandamus to quash vacation notice dated 07.01.2026; encroachment removal from highway property; explanation dated 10.01.2026 to be considered; Kanchipuram District Collector; Tahsildar Kunrathur Taluk; Assistant Divisional Engineer (State Highways) Tambaram Division; writ dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition dismissed with observations — liberty to reply preserved, authorities to consider the explanation dated 10.01.2026 and decide in accordance with law; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶29

P.Aadhilakshmi Vs District collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable against the notice dated 07.01.2026 issued under Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, there being no contention that the notice was issued by an incompetent authority. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

No writ is maintainable against the issuance of a notice unless the issuance of the notice is by an incompetent authority; the petitioner did not contend that the impugned notice was issued by an incompetent authority.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is given to the petitioner to reply to the authority concerned, and the Authorities are directed to consider the petitioner's reply/explanation dated 10.01.2026 and thereafter take a decision in accordance with law.

¶25

Key takeaways

If any encroachments are identified, all encroachments on Highway properties are to be removed and enforcement actions are to be continued.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Division Bench; order by C.Kumarappan J.) dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking certiorarified mandamus to quash Letter No.324/Aakiramippu/2025/E.Ni.U dated 07.01.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent (Assistant Divisional Engineer, State Highways, Tambaram Division) directing the petitioner to vacate the petition premises within 14 days. The notice was issued under Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. Holding that no writ is maintainable against the mere issuance of a notice unless it is issued by an incompetent authority — a contention the petitioner did not raise — the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to reply, noted the explanation already given on 10.01.2026, and directed the Authorities to consider that reply and take a decision in accordance with law, observing that if encroachments are identified, all encroachments on Highway properties are to be removed and enforcement actions continued. Writ petition dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

WP No. 3133 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶8

WP No. 3133 of 2026 and WMP.No.3519 of 2026

P.Aadhilakshmi

..Petitioner(s)

The District Collector, Kanchipuram District, Kanchipuram-631 501.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Kunrathur Taluk Kunrathur, Chennai-600 069.

¶14

The Assistant Divisional Engineer (State Highways) Tambaram Division, Chennai-600 042

¶15

..Respondent(s)

¶16

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of certiorarified mandamus, calling for records of the 3rd respondent in Letter bearing No.324/ Aakiramippu/ 2025 / E.Ni.U dated 07.01.2026 to vacate the petitioner from petition premises within 14 days from the date of said order and to quash the same.

¶17

__________ Page1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

WP No. 3133 of 2026

¶20

For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Seshachari For Respondent(s): Mr.T.Arun Kumar Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by C.Kumarappan J.)

¶23

The present Writ Petition has been filed assailing the order of the Assistant Executive Engineer dated 07.01.2026. On perusal of such notice, it is seen that the notice was issued under Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. It is settled principle of law that no writ is maintainable against the issuance of notice unless such issuance of notice is by an incompetent authority.

¶24

In this case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the notice was issued by an incompetent authority. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to give liberty to the petitioner to reply to the authority concerned. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner has already given explanation on 10.01.2026.

¶25

In view of the above fact, the Authorities are directed to consider the above reply and thereafter, take a decision in accordance with law. If any encroachments are identified then, all encroachments on Highway properties are to be removed and enforcement actions to be continued.

¶26

__________ Page2 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

WP No. 3133 of 2026

¶29