E.Bhuvaneshwari v. The Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR and W.M.P.Nos.2049 & 2055 of 2025 E.Bhuvaneshwari W/o.Elangovan ... Petitioner in W.P.No.1802 of 2025 Saran Kumar S/o.Udhayakumar ... Petitioner in W.P.No.1807 of 2025 Vs.
1.
The Commissioner Salem Corporation Salem District Salem - 636 001.
2.
The Assistant Commissioner Suramangalam Zonal Officer Salem Corporation Salem District, Salem-636005.
... Respondents in both WPs Page Nos.1/8
Prayer :
Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for records pertaining to the issuance of Na.Ka.No.K1/2658/2021 dated 12.11.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same.
For Petitioner in both WPs :
Ms.S.Sowmiya For Respondents in both WPs :
Ms.Devi .N Standing Counsel for Salem Corporation C O M M O N O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Captioned main 'Writ Petitions' {hereinafter 'WPs' for the sake of brevity} have been filed assailing 'two notices, both dated 12.11.2024 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.K1/2658/2021' {hereinafter collectively referred to as 'impugned notices' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity}. To be noted, impugned notices have been issued by R2 [The Assistant Commissioner, Suramangalam Zonal Office, Salem Corporation, Salem District].
2. Learned counsel for writ petitioners submits that writ petitioners Page Nos.2/8
have been visited with impugned notices suddenly.
3. Issue notice.
4. Ms.Devi .N, learned standing counsel for Salem Corporation accepts notice for both respondents and submits that impugned notices are only in the nature of 'Show Cause Notices' {'SCNs'}.
5. Owing to the limited scope of captioned WPs, main WPs were taken up in the Admission Board with the consent of both sides.
6. A careful perusal of impugned notices brings to light that a spot visit / spot assessment {neuha;t[} was done and it was found that noticees qua impugned notices have encroached upon public areas causing inconvenience to general public and traffic {bghJ kf;fSf;Fk;. nghf;Ftuj;jpw;Fk; ,ila{W Vw;gLj;Jjy;}.
7. Be that as it may, it is seen that impugned notices only call upon noticees to produce supporting documents particularly with details such as, area of the shop, usage for which shop is to be put to and orders in this regard. Impugned notices have fixed 20.11.2024 at 11.00 a.m. as the date and time (to be noted Suramangalam Ward Office is the venue) to produce documents.
Page Nos.3/8
8. Learned counsel for writ petitioners submits that noticees qua impugned notices have produced documents on 20.11.2024 and further orders are yet to be made.
9. Before we proceed further, we deem it appropriate to record the submission of learned State Counsel that earlier a writ petition in W.P.No.14952 of 2020 was filed and there was a direction from this Court to take action against such unauthorized occupation causing hindrance to traffic and public. We find from our research that W.P.No.14952 of 2020 was disposed of by another Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in and by an order dated 16.10.2020 inter alia directing action in this regard.
10. Reverting to the case on hand, we have no hesitation in agreeing that impugned notices are only in the nature of SCNs. A scanned reproduction of impugned notice in W.P.No.1802 of 2025 (E.Bhuvaneshwari is the writ petitioner) is as follows:
Page Nos.4/8
Page Nos.5/8
Page Nos.6/8
11. We, therefore have no reason to interfere with impugned notices. In this regard, we remind ourselves that it is nobody's case that impugned notices have been issued without jurisdiction. As writ petitioners have responded to impugned notices, let law take its course on its own merits. In other words, let respondents examine responses of writ petitioners i.e., responses to impugned notices on their own merits and in accordance with law and proceed.
12. In the light of the narrative thus far, we have no ground to interfere with impugned notices.
13. Sequitur is, captioned main WPs fail and the same are dismissed albeit with observation that the matter shall proceed on their own merits and in accordance with law. Consequently, Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 27.01.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order mk Page Nos.7/8
M.SUNDAR, J., and K.RAJASEKAR, J., mk To 1.
The Commissioner Salem Corporation Salem District Salem - 636 001.
2.
The Assistant Commissioner Suramangalam Zonal Officer Salem Corporation Salem District, Salem-636005.
27.01.2025 (2/2) Page Nos.8/8