Madras High CourtWP/13197/2026disposed of

Arumugapandi, v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,

2026-04-08Honourable The Chief Justice,Honourable Mr.Justice G.Arul Murugan6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.04.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN and W.M.P.No.14468 of 2026 Arumugapandi, S/o.Ganapathy, No.18 E, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, M.G.R.Salai, Perungudi, Chennai - 600 096.

Petitioner Vs 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Executive Engineer, Zone-14, Greater Chennai Corporation, Puzhuthivakkam, Chennai.

3.The Assistant Engineer, Ward 184, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai - 600 096.

Respondents

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to dispose the revision petition filed by the petitioner on 25.03.2026 in Form IX under Section 80A of the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, with acknowledgement No.111/ N14/N184/00014/2026.

For Petitioner:

Mr.S.Shanmugasundaram For Respondents:

Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman Government Advocate for R1 Mr.P.Prithvi Chopda Standing Counsel for R2 and R3

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the first respondent to dispose of the revision petition filed under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 against the lock and seal order passed by the second respondent.

3. This Court, vide order dated 18.08.2025 in W.P.No.31046 of 2025 (D.Ezhil Maran vs. The Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dept) had dealt with similar prayer and disposed of the said writ petition with the following observations and directions: "3. This Court is flooded with similar cases where revision petitions are being filed along with stay applications and due to delay in considering the prayer for stay, proceedings are being drawn for lock and seal of the premises.

4. Where a revision petition is filed along with an application for stay, the revisional authority must decide the application for stay within a period of three weeks from the date of filing of the stay application. Further, we are of the view that, at least for three weeks, till the stay application is decided one way or the other, coercive steps should not be adopted by the local body even without waiting for a decision on the stay application.

5. We direct the revisional authority to decide the application for stay within a period of three weeks from today. The petitioner shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed by the revisional authority for consideration of the stay application. A copy of this order shall be placed by the petitioner before the revisional authority within five days. Coercive action shall not be taken for a period of three weeks by the Corporation. If the order passed by us today is not placed before the revisional authority within a period of five days from today, the protective umbrella given shall lose its efficacy."

4. This writ petition stands disposed of on similar lines.

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 08.04.2026 Index :

Yes/No :

Yes/No bbr

To:

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Executive Engineer, Zone-14, Greater Chennai Corporation, Puzhuthivakkam, Chennai.

3.The Assistant Engineer, Ward 184, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai - 600 096.

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

bbr 08.04.2026