Disposed¶30

Peyammal M v. the Commissioner

Madras HC2 Jun 2026WP(MD)/16094/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; W.P.(MD)No.16094 of 2021; Dindigul Municipal Corporation; show cause notice; natural justice; inadequate/opportunity of hearing; three days' reply time held insufficient; son of deceased petitioner permitted to file explanation within three weeks; no merits decided; disposed of with no costs; connected W.M.P.(MD)Nos.12950 of 2021 & 22478 of 2025 closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without costs and without interfering with the impugned notice; the deceased writ petitioner's son permitted to offer his explanation within three weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, after which the authority may pass appropriate orders; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶30

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned notice dated 24.08.2021 issued by the first respondent is liable to be quashed as illegal. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

Without interfering with the impugned notice, the Court permitted the deceased writ petitioner's son to offer his explanation within three weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, and the authority may pass appropriate orders upon receipt of that explanation.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The three days' time given to the noticee to place his objections under the impugned show cause notice was clearly insufficient.

¶26

Key takeaways

The Court expressly clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the matter.ratio¶26
If the writ petitioner's son fails to offer his explanation, the authority is at liberty to proceed further in the matter as per law.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a notice dated 24.08.2021 (Na.Ka.No.4762/F3) issued by the Commissioner, Dindigul Municipal Corporation. The writ petitioner having died, and the impugned notice being in the nature of a show cause notice affording the noticee hardly three days to file objections, the Division Bench held the time clearly insufficient. The Court declined to interfere with the notice, permitted the deceased petitioner's son to submit his explanation within three weeks of receipt of a copy of the order, and left the authority free to pass appropriate orders thereafter, or to proceed as per law if no explanation is filed. The Court expressly did not go into the merits. Writ petition disposed of; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)NO.16094 OF 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 02.06.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶8

W.P.(MD)No.16094 of 2021 and

¶9

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.12950 of 2021 & 22478 of 2025

M.Peyammal

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner, Dindigul Municipal Corporation, Dindigul.

¶14

S.Ragurama Krishnan ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.4762/F3 dated 24.08.2021 and quash the same as illegal.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Chandrakumar For Respondents : Mr.J.Lawrance for R-1.

¶17

Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar for R-2.

¶18

¶19

1/4

¶20

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

¶21

2 W.P.(MD)NO.16094 OF 2021

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶24

The writ petitioner is said to be no more. The petitioner's

¶25

counsel states that he may be given some time so as to bring the legal heirs on record.

¶26

We went through the contents of the impugned notice. It is more in the nature of a show cause notice. Noticee has been given an opportunity to place his objections. However, hardly three days time was given for this. In our view, it was clearly insufficient. Therefore, even while not interfering with the impugned notice, we permit the deceased writ petitioner's son to offer his explanation within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of the writ petitioner's explanation, the authority may pass appropriate orders. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter. If the writ petitioner's son fails to offer his explanation, the authority is at liberty to proceed further in the

¶27

2/4

¶28

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

¶29

3 W.P.(MD)NO.16094 OF 2021

¶30

matter as per law. This writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶31

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶32

(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (B.PUGALENDHI, J.)