F.Jobinston Sherwin v. The Tamilnadu Local Body Ombudsman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.08.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN & W.M.P.Nos.7913 & 7914 of 2024 F.Jobinston Sherwin ..
Petitioner Vs.
1. The Tamil Nadu Local Body Ombudsman No.100, Anna Salai Guindy, Chennai 600 032.
2. The Greater Chennai Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner Rippon Building, Chennai 600 003.
3. The Zonal Officer Mandalam II Greater Chennai Corporation No.33, Arcot Road, Valasaravakkam Chennai 600 087.
4. K.G.Elango ..
Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd & 3rd respondents to remove, demolish the entire unauthorised and illegal construction
put forth by the 4th respondent in the schedule mentioned property. For Petitioner :
Ms.S.Nirmal Aditya For Respondents :
Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman Government Advocate for Respondent-1 Mr.M.Suresh Kumar Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.DBR Prabhu Standing Counsel for Respondents 2 & 3 Mr.K.Thiruvengadam for Respondent-4
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) This petition has been filed by petitioner seeking issuance of Mandamus to respondent authorities to demolish the construction, which, allegedly, was made in violation, by private respondent.
2. In the petition, it has been stated that the illegal construction has resulted in obstruction and enjoyment of easementary rights of access to air and light. We further find that
private respondent has also approached Ombudsman, who has passed an order on 30.08.2023.
3. Learned counsel for private respondent is unable to satisfy this Court whether or not the order passed by Ombudsman has been challenged by private respondent.
4. Taking into consideration that official respondents have already initiated the process of demolition, without commenting upon the legality and validity of the same, as also the proceedings and order of Ombudsman and keeping it open to petitioner to take such remedy as may be available to him, petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim applications are closed.
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (SUNDER MOHAN,J) 25.08.2025 Index :
Yes/No Yes/No kpl
To
1. The Tamil Nadu Local Body Ombudsman No.100, Anna Salai Guindy Chennai 600 032.
2. The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Building Chennai 600 003.
3. The Zonal Officer Mandalam II Greater Chennai Corporation No.33, Arcot Road Valasaravakkam Chennai 600 087.
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND SUNDER MOHAN,J.
(kpl) 25.08.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN F.Jobinston Sherwin S/o.Late J.Franklin Israel Plot No.6,7th Street Metro Nagar Extension Alapakkam,Porur, Chennai-116.
Petitioner(s) Vs The Tamilnadu Local Body Ombudsman No.100, Anna Salai, Guindy Chennai-032 and 3 Others Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S.Nirmal Aditya For Respondent(s):
Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman Government Advocate for R1 Mr.M.Suresh Kumar Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu Standing Counsel for R2 & R3 Mr.K.Thiruvengadam for R4
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) This case was taken up, upon being mentioned, on a prayer for correction of typographical mistake in paragraph 2 of the order passed by us, on 25.08.2025.
2. After considering the submission of learned counsel for petitioner, we are inclined to order that in paragraph 2 of the order, in place of "private respondent", it shall be read in substitution as "petitioner".
4. This order shall be produced by the parties before the competent authorities, along with the original order dated 25.08.2025 passed by this Court.
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 10.09.2025
kpl