K.S.Chandrashekar v. The Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR & W.M.P Nos.23204 and 23207 of 2025 K.S.Chandrashekar ... Petitioner Vs.
The Commissioner Hosur Municipal Corporation Hosur - 635 109 Krishnagiri District ... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of certiorari mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned notice under Section 128(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 issued by the respondent in his office Ref.Na.Ka.No.6365/2019/F1 dated 07.05.2025, quash the same and forbear the respondent, his men and agent from in any manner demolishing and removing the petitioner's house bearing Plot No.181/3, R.K.Nagar, Hosur, Krishnagiir District and comprised in Old S.No.181/3 part, T.S.No.98, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
For Petitioner :
Mr.P.Mani Page Nos.1/10
For Respondent :
Mr.T.Balaji Standing counsel
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Subject matter of captioned 'writ petition' [hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity] is alleged encroachment in 'Plot No.181/3, R.K.Nagar comprised in Old S.No.181/3 part, T.S.No.98 Hosur, Krishnagiri District' [hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. 2.
Captioned WP inter alia impugns 'a notice dated 07.05.2025 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.6365/2019/F1 issued by the respondent (Commissioner, Hosur Municipal Corporation)' [hereinafter 'impugned notice' for the sake of convenience and clarity] under Section 128 (1)(b) of 'The Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 (Act 9 of 1999)' [hereinafter 'the TNULB Act' for the sake of brevity]. By the impugned notice, the petitioner has been inter alia directed to remove the alleged encroachment made by him in the said land.
Page Nos.2/10
3.
Mr. P.Mani, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner and Mr. Mr.T.Balaji, learned Standing counsel for the sole respondent are before us.
4.
Before we proceed further, we deem it appropriate to extract Section 128 of the TNULB Act (in its entirety) as it stands today and the same reads as under:
'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, public place, water body, tank, other water resources or any land belonging to or vested with the municipality with the municipal limit;
(b) remove any immovable structure whether permanent or of temporary nature encroaching street, public place, water body, tank, other water resources or any 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 fifteen days from the date of receipt thereof: Provided that the Commissioner shall consider any representation received within the time limit, before passing final orders.
Page Nos.3/10
(2) Whoever makes any encroachment in any land or space (not being private property) in any public street, water body, tank, other water resources 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.' (underlining made by us for ease of reference) 5.
Though the impugned notice reads that the impugned notice is one under Section 128 (1)(b) of TNULB Act, as matter on hand pertains to immovable structure, writ petitioner should be given 15 days time to respond to impugned notice and thereafter, the respondent should pass final orders considering such response. However, the impugned notice grants only three days time to respond as against 15 days as mandated in the Statute.
6.
It is also seen that the writ petitioner has responded to the impugned notice vide his response dated 05.06.2025, a scanned reproduction of which is as follows:
Page Nos.4/10
Page Nos.5/10
Page Nos.6/10
Page Nos.7/10
7.
In such view of the matter, the impugned notice is directed to be treated as a show cause notice (SCN) served on the writ petitioner today and the petitioner's representation dated 05.06.2025 shall be considered and final order shall be passed by the respondent on its own merits and in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from today i.e., on or Page Nos.8/10
before 24.06.2025. The final order so passed shall be served on the writ petitioner within a period of five working days from the date of the final order. If the final order passed by respondent is adverse to the writ petitioner, the same shall be kept in abeyance for a fortnight from the date of service of the final order on the writ petitioner so as to provide a window to the writ petitioner to assail the said order if permissible in law or to seek judicial review of the said order. If the writ petitioner does not do so within a fortnight from the date of service of the said order, the final order so passed by the respondent will be resuscitated and put into motion. If the final order passed by the respondent ends up in favour of the writ petitioner, that would be curtains on the matter.
8.
Captioned WP stands disposed of in the aforesaid manner. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (H.C.,J.) 10.06.2025 Index : Yes / No gpa Page Nos.9/10
M.SUNDAR, J., and HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J., gpa To The Commissioner Hosur Municipal Corporation Hosur - 635 109 Krishnagiri District.
10.06.2025 Page Nos.10/10