Janap Syed Meer v. The Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28.11.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI Janap Syed Meer ..

Petitioner Vs.

1. The Commissioner Land Administration and Reforms Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.

2. The District Collector Arcot, Ranipet District.

3. The Commissioner Arcot Municipality, Arcot Town and Taluk Panchayat, Ranipet District.

4. The Executive Officer Arcot Town and Taluk, Panchayat Ranipet District.

..

Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the eviction notice issued by third respondent under Section 128(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, (amended 2022) in Na.Ka.No.2716/2023/F1 dated 25.09.2025.

For the Petitioner :

Mr.V.Gopinath

For the Respondents :

Ms.M.Jayanthy Additional Government Pleader for R1 and R2 Mr.P.Anand Standing Counsel for R3 Mr.R.Neethiperumal Government Advocate for R4

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) This writ petition in fact has been filed challenging the show-cause notice issued under Section 128 (1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 dated 25.09.2025.

2. Heard Mr.V.Gopinath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.M.Jayanthy, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2, Mr.P.Anand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent 3 and Mr.R.Neethiperumal, learned Government Advocate for respondent 4.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent 3, on instructions, would submit that, pursuant to the order impugned dated 25.09.2025, a reply has been given by the petitioner on 06.10.2025, which is under the consideration of the third

respondent Municipality and having considering the same, final orders would be passed under the provisions of the said Act. Therefore, before such order is passed, since the writ petition has been filed challenging the show-cause notice, it is a pre-mature one, he submitted.

4. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, since the petitioner apprehends that adverse order would be passed against him, therefore, as a precaution, he has come before this Court challenging the said show-cause notice.

5. We are not impressed with the same for the simple reason that, once he has chosen to give a reply to the show-cause notice, which is impugned herein, on 06.10.2025 and it is under the active consideration of the third respondent Municipality, before even passing any final orders, coming to the conclusive decision of challenging the show-cause notice is impermissible. Therefore, with liberty to challenge the final order to be passed by the third respondent Municipality, if at all adversely passed against the petitioner, this writ petition could be disposed of.

6. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to challenge the final order to be passed pursuant to the impugned show-cause notice issued by the third respondent Municipality. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.49260 of 2025 is closed. (R.S.K., J.) (K.G.T., J.) 28.11.2025 Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No (drm)

To:

1. The Commissioner Land Administration and Reforms Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.

2. The District Collector Arcot, Ranipet District.

3. The Commissioner Arcot Municipality, Arcot Town and Taluk Panchayat, Ranipet District.

4. The Executive Officer Arcot Town and Taluk, Panchayat Ranipet District.

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

AND K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

(drm) 28.11.2025