Csi St. Paul Church v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR and W.M.P. No.37906 of 2025 in W.P. No.33775 of 2025 CSI St. Paul Church rep. by its Presbyter, CMC Colony, Sathuvachari, Vellore - 630 009.
... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Vellore, Vellore District - 632 009.
2.The Commissioner, Vellore Corporation, Zone 2 Phase 2, Sathuvachari, Vellore -632 009.
3.The Tahsildar, Vellore District, Vellore - 632 001.
4.T.Sathyanarayanan ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in connection Page Nos.1/12
with the impugned notice in Na.Ka.No.1842/2025/F1 dated 21.08.2025 issued by the second respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner :
Mr.D.Muthukumar of M/s.Paul & Paul & J.Hudson Samuel (Law Firm) For Respondents :
Mr.M.S.Arasakumar, Government Advocate for R1 and R3 Mr.P.S.Prabu, Standing Counsel for R2
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Captioned 'Writ Petition' [hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity} has been filed seeking issue of a writ of certiorari assailing a notice dated 21.08.2025 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.1842/2025/F1 made by R2 [Commissioner, Vellore Corporation, Vellore]. This notice shall hereinafter be referred to as 'impugned notice' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity.
2. Mr.D.Muthukumar of M/s.Paul & Paul & J.Hudson Samuel (Law Firm), learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that the impugned notice refers to prior notice under Section 128(1)(b) of 'The Tamil Page Nos.2/12
Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 (Act 9 of 1999)' [hereinafter 'TNULB Act' for the sake of brevity] being 'notice dated 11.06.2025 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.1842/2025/F1' {hereinafter 'SCN' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity}, writ petitioner has duly responded to the SCN by way of a detailed response dated 10.07.2025 but the impugned notice has been made by R2 by stating that writ petitioner has not responded to SCN and obviously, has not considered the writ petitioner's response. This is contra to the scheme and mechanism of Section 128(1)(b) of TNULB act is learned counsel's say.
3. Issue notice to official respondents.
4. Mr.M.S.Arasakumar, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for R1 and R3 and Mr.P.S.Prabu, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice for R2.
5. Learned State counsel very fairly submits that considering the scheme and legal mechanism i.e., quasi-judicial exercise put in place by Section 128(1)(b) of TNULB Act, R2 should have considered the writ petitioner's response dated 10.07.2025 (response to 11.06.2025 SCN) and thereafter, made final orders one way or the other. Page Nos.3/12
6. In the light of the fair submission, we have no difficulty in dislodging the impugned order on the short point that it has not considered the writ petitioner's reply to SCN though the writ petitioner's reply to SCN has been citied as No.3 in the reference in the impugned order. However, we make it clear that it is open to R2 to consider the writ petitioner's response to SCN and make orders afresh which will be in accordance with proviso to Section 128(1)(b) of TNULB Act which refers to such orders as 'final orders'.
7. Be that as it may, as regards R4 (private respondent), R4 came to this Court earlier by way of W.P.No.10214 of 2025 with a 'Removal of Encroachment' {'RoE'} prayer arraying the writ petitioner before us in the captioned matter as R5. This writ petition came to be disposed of by another Hon'ble Division Bench in and by an order dated 25.04.2025 and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:
Page Nos.4/12
Page Nos.5/12
Page Nos.6/12
8. This 25.04.2025 order was carried to Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.41441/2025, Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of SLP by order dated 08.04.2025 and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows: Page Nos.7/12
Page Nos.8/12
9. Adverting to the above, learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that pursuant to orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court, writ petitioner has filed a review application being Review Application No.232 of 2025 which has to be listed before Hon'ble Division Bench which made the earlier order. We make it clear that this order will not in any manner impact the review application and more particularly it Page Nos.9/12
will not impact the rights of R4 (private respondent) before us in any manner. On the contrary, for the sake of specificity, we clarify that all the rights and contentions of R4 (private respondent) will stand preserved. Therefore, there is no difficulty in dispensing with notice to R4 and taking up the main WP (which is being disposed of on a short point of not considering the writ petitioner's response) with the consent of learned counsel for writ petitioner and learned State Counsel.
10. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned WP is allowed albeit with preservation of rights and contentions of writ petitioner, private respondent (R4) and State in the manner set out supra. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (M.S.K.,J.) 04.09.2025 Index : Yes / No mmi Page Nos.10/12
To 1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Vellore, Vellore District - 632 009.
2.The Commissioner, Vellore Corporation, Zone 2 Phase 2, Sathuvachari, Vellore -632 009.
3.The Tahsildar, Vellore District, Vellore - 632 001.
Page Nos.11/12
M.SUNDAR, J., and MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J., mmi 04.09.2025 Page Nos.12/12