Disposed¶44

M.Babu v. the Commissioner

Madras HC10 Feb 2026WP/38414/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Greater Chennai Corporation demolition proceedings compliance; writ of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226; quash proceedings No.Z.O.VIII.C.No. /2025 dated 18.09.2025 of Executive Engineer Zone VIII; drop further proceedings against property at No.31/106 Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai; Superintending Engineer PWD inspection report 05.02.2026; work completed as recommended by third respondent; debris cleared; demolition of front portion requires Corporation permission; writ petition closed no costs; connected W.M.P.No.42944 of 2025 closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed without costs; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.No.42944 of 2025) closed; compliance with the Court's earlier order recorded. ¶44

M.Babu Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition closed without costs; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.No.42944 of 2025) closed; compliance with the Court's earlier order recorded.

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the second respondent's proceedings No.Z.O.VIII.C.No. /2025 dated 18.09.2025 concerning the petitioner's property at No.31/106, Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai should be quashed and all further proceedings dropped (framed from the prayer; the Court ultimately closed the petition on recorded compliance without deciding this question).

¶14

Court's answer

The Superintending Engineer's report shows that the petitioner completed the work as recommended by the third respondent and that the debris lying in the area has been cleared.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Compliance with the Court's earlier order is recorded for the purpose of this case.

¶43

Key takeaways

Whether the landlord wants to retain his property or not is not for this Court to dictate; if he desires demolition (of the front portion), he may apply to the Corporation and obtain necessary permission.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (V. Lakshminarayanan, J.), W.P.No.38414 of 2025 — M.Babu v. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation & others (decided 10.02.2026): The petitioner had sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the second respondent's (Executive Engineer, Zone VIII, Greater Chennai Corporation) proceedings No.Z.O.VIII.C.No. /2025 dated 18.09.2025 and to drop all further proceedings against his property at No.31/106, Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai. In terms of the Court's earlier orders, the Superintending Engineer, PWD inspected the property on 05.02.2026 and reported that the petitioner had completed the work recommended by the third respondent and cleared the debris. Recording compliance, the Court observed that whether the landlord retains or demolishes his property is not for it to dictate, and that any desired demolition of the front portion requires application to the Corporation for permission. The writ petition and connected W.M.P.No.42944 of 2025 were closed without costs.

¶1

W.P.No.38414 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

W.P.No.38414 of 2025 & W.M.P.No.42944 of 2025

M.Babu

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.

¶11

2.The Executive Engineer (Zone VIII), Greater Chennai Corporation, No.36B, Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 030

¶12

3.The Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Planning and Design Circle, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶13

4.P.S.Theleep Kumar .. Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent proceedings No.Z.O.VIII.C.No. /2025 dated 18.09.2025 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to drop all further proceedings against the petitioners property situated at 1/9

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.38414 of 2025 No.31/106, Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600

For Petitioner

: Mr.V.K.Rajagopalan

For Respondents 1 & 2

¶21

: Mr.Anban Bharath for Ms.Aswini Devi

¶22

2/9

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.38414 of 2025

¶25

For Respondent 3 : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

In terms of the orders passed by this Court, the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Planning and Designing Circle, Chennai – 5 has inspected the property on 05.02.2026. The report filed by the Superintending Engineer shows that the petitioner has completed the work as recommended by the third respondent. It also records that the debris lying in the area has also been cleared. This report and photographs are scanned and extracted hereunder:

¶28

3/9

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.38414 of 2025

¶31

4/9

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.38414 of 2025

¶34

5/9

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.38414 of 2025

¶37

It is in compliance of the order passed by this Court.

¶38

6/9

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.38414 of 2025

¶41

At this stage, Mr.V.K.Rajagopalan states that the

¶42

intention of the petitioner to demolish the front portion also. As to whether the landlord wants to retain his property or not is not

¶43

for this court to dictate. If he desires for demolition, he may apply to the Corporation and obtain necessary permission. For the purpose of this case, compliance is recorded.

¶44