Gnanchandran v. The Secretary To Government
M.SUNDAR, J.
and K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
(Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.) Captioned matter is listed today under the cause list caption 'FOR BEING MENTIONED' inasmuch as the year i.e., '2025' beneath the signature part of the order dated 24.02.2025, disposing of the captioned matter, has been inadvertently typed as '2024'. 2.
Today, Mr. P.Mahadevan, learned counsel for writ petitioner, Dr.T.Seenivasan, learned Special Government Pleader for R1 and R2, Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for R3 and Mr.M.S.Arasakumar, learned Government Advocate for R4 are before this Court.
M.SUNDAR, J.
and K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
gpa 3.
The aforereferred counsel on either side agreed to have the aforementioned correction made.
4.
Accordingly, the year wrongly typed as '2024' beneath the signature part of the order dated 24.02.2025, shall read as '2025'. In all other aspects, the order dated 24.02.2025 remains the same. Therefore, this order will now be made as 'Addendum' and Corrigendum / Erratum to 24.02.2025 order already pronounced in open court and already uploaded. This order will now be uploaded as 'ADDENDUM' to / along with order made by this Court on 24.02.2025 and the Registry shall issue certified copies accordingly.
(M.S.J.) (K.G.T.,J.) 10.03.2025 gpa W.P. No.6351 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI W.P.No.6351 of 2025 and W.M.P. No.6986 of 2025 Gnanachandran Petitioner vs.
1.
The Secretary to Government Municipal Administration Fort St. George Chennai 600 009 2.
The Commissioner Cuddalore Corporation Cuddalore 607 001 3.
The Commissioner of Police Cuddalore Corporation Cuddalore 607 001 4.
The Collector Cuddalore District Cuddalore 607 001 Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus for free flow of traffic to restrain the respondent Corporation to construct shops in S.No.449/1A2 which obstructs the free flow of traffic in the public road which is adjoining the petitioner's property entry gate and out gate.
For petitioner Mr. P. Mahaadevan For RR 1 & 2 Dr. T. Seenivasan Special Government Pleader For R3 Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran Additional Public Prosecutor For R4 Mr. M.S. Arasakumar Government Advocate
O R D E R
[made by M.SUNDAR, J.] Subject matter of captioned main 'Writ Petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity) is 'land comprised in Town Survey No.449/1A2 situate in Ward No.6, Block No.16 in Cuddalore Corporation' (hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of convenience and clarity).
2.
Mr. P. Mahaadevan, learned counsel for writ petitioner, very fairly submits that writ petitioner has been visited with a notice under Section 128 of 'The Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 (Act 9 of 1999)' (hereinafter 'TNULB Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity). This notice dated 26.09.2023 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.6322/2014/F1 shall hereinafter be referred to as 'said notice' for the sake of convenience and clarity.
3.
A scanned reproduction of said notice is as follows:
4.
Learned counsel submits that writ petitioner, as noticee qua said notice, has responded vide a representation dated 12.10.2023 but no orders have been made by R2 (Commissioner, Cuddalore Corporation) and under such circumstances, captioned main WP has been filed.
5.
Issue notice to respondents.
6.
Dr. T. Seenivasan, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice for RR 1 and 2, Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice for R3 and Mr.M.S.Arasakumar, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for R4.
7.
Learned State counsel for R4 submits, on instructions, that the prayer in the captioned main WP is to mandamus (restrain) Cuddalore Corporation from constructing shops in said land on the ground that the same will obstruct free flow of traffic adjoining the entry gate and out gate of writ petitioner's property. 8.
We carefully considered the submissions and the
obtaining position.
9.
Section 128 of TNULB reads as follows:
'128. Power to remove encroachment from public place. -(1) The Commissioner may, - (a) remove without any notice any movable temporary structure, enclosure, stall, booth, any article whatsoever hawked, exposed or displayed for sale or any other thing whatsoever by way of encroaching street or public place or the [land belonging to or vested with the municipality] with the municipal limit;
(b) remove any immovable structure whether permanent or of temporary nature encroaching the street or public place or the [land belonging to municipality or vested with the municipality] within the municipal limit, after issuing a show cause notice for such removal, returnable within a period of seven days from the date of receipt thereof: Provided that the Commissioner shall consider any representation received within the time limit, before passing final orders.
(2) Whoever makes any encroachment in any land or space (not being private property) in any public street or any [land belonging to or vested with the municipality] within the municipal limit, shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to [fifty thousand rupees]:
Provided that the Court may, for any adequate or special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year.' 10.
From a reading of the aforementioned provision, it is clear that said notice has been issued under Section 128(1)(b).
Section 128(1)(b) provides for a noticee being show caused vide a show cause notice (hereinafter 'SCN' for the sake of brevity) returnable in seven days but the said notice, as would be evident from the scanned reproduction supra, instead of show causing the writ petitioner, has directly called upon the writ petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment.
11.
However, writ petitioner has responded to said notice vide a representation dated 12.10.2023 about which also there is allusion supra.
12.
If the said notice had been issued as SCN, the writ petitioner ought to have responded within seven days but as it has not been issued as SCN, we hold that it shall now be construed as SCN and as it is being construed as SCN now and as the writ petitioner has already sent a representation, we deem it appropriate to construe writ petitioner's 12.10.2023 representation to have been sent post SCN and not just post said notice. 13.
The above means that R2 should now pass 'final orders' vide proviso to Section 128(1)(b).
14.
Learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that notwithstanding the prayer in captioned main WP, it will serve the purpose and satisfy the prayer of the writ petitioner if R2 passes 'final orders' in the aforesaid manner.
15.
Learned State Counsel for R4 submits that R2 will now pass 'final orders' as expeditiously as the business of R2 permits. This submission is recorded.
16.
Let the same be done and let a copy of 'final orders' be served on the writ petitioner under due acknowledgment within five working days from the date of making of 'final orders' under/within the meaning of proviso to Section 128(1)(b).
17.
Captioned WP stands disposed of in the aforesaid manner. Consequently, captioned writ miscellaneous petition thereat is disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S., J.) (K.G.T., J.) 24.02.2024 cad Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
To:
1.
The Secretary to Government Municipal Administration Fort St. George Chennai 600 009 2.
The Commissioner Cuddalore Corporation Cuddalore 607 001 3.
The Commissioner of Police Cuddalore Corporation Cuddalore 607 001 4.
The Collector Cuddalore District Cuddalore 607 001
M.SUNDAR, J.
and K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
cad 24.02.2025