P.V.Rajkumar v. The Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.12.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN P.V.Rajkumar S/o.R.Vellangiri No.216/601, "Sangara Rama Giri" Illam Puliyakulam Main Road Puliyakulam, Coimbatore-641 045 Petitioner Vs 1.The Commissioner The Corporation of Coimbatore Coimbatore-641 018 2.The Assistant Commissioner Central Zone Coimbatore Corporation Coimbatore-641 018 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, North Division, Coimbatore-641 018 4.The Tahsildar, North Division, Coimbatore-641 018

5.The Trustee Sri Sowbaghya Sithi Vinayagar Temple Dr.Subbarayan Street Tatabad, Coimbatore-641 012 Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take necessary action on 5th respondent to remove the encroachment within the time frame.

For Petitioner:

Mr.Thirumurugan For Respondents:

Mr.N. Velmurugan Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath Government Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4 M/s.R.Divya Praethika for Mr.R.Bharath Kumar for respondent No.5

ORDER

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

2. The petitioner's grievance, in our opinion, stands redressed in

as much as the respondent authorities are not guilty of inaction. The report of the Tahsildar is placed before us, which says that there is encroachment on the road and action is contemplated.

3. Learned counsel for the Corporation would submit that the Corporation has already issued a notice to respondent No.5 on 12.06.2025.

4. Since the official respondents have already initiated proceedings against respondent No.5, we are not inclined to keep this petition pending, but dispose it of with a direction to the respondent authorities to conclude the proceedings, one way or the other, within the outer limit of three months.

5. This order and the proceedings should not be treated as stamp of approval on the action which is being sought to be taken by the authorities against respondent No.5. It is open for respondent No.5 to take such remedy, if it feels aggrieved by the notice and eviction proceedings drawn by the official respondents.

6. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 10.12.2025 Index :

Yes/No :

Yes/No bbr To:

1.The Commissioner The Corporation of Coimbatore Coimbatore-641 018 2.The Assistant Commissioner Central Zone Coimbatore Corporation Coimbatore-641 018 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, North Division, Coimbatore-641 018 4.The Tahsildar, North Division, Coimbatore-641 018

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

bbr 10.12.2025