Saraswathi v. The Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19.01.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN & W.M.P.No.367 of 2026 Saraswathi ..

Petitioner Vs.

1. The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Chennai 600 003.

2. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board Kamarajar Salai Chennai 600 005.

3. The District Collector Chennai District Chennai.

4. The Zonal Officer Zone IX Greater Chennai Corporation Chennai.

5. The Tahsildar Teynampet Chennai 600 018.

6. The Inspector of Police Pondy Bazar Police Station T.Nagar Chennai 600 017.

7. V.Shankar

8. Madan

9. P.Chandru ..

Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for records of the 5th Respondent Notice issued in reference No. Zone IX DN 113/TPENF/109/2020 dated 25.11 2024 and quash the same.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Lawrence Peter For Respondents :

Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu Standing Counsel for Respondents 1 & 4 Mrs.K.Indumathy Venkatesh for Respondent-2 Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman Government Advocate for Respondents 3 & 5 Mr.E.Prathap Government Advocate for Respondent-6

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Challenge to lock and seal notice dated 25.11.2024 is essentially premised on the ground that action has been initiated against petitioner in purported compliance of the orders passed by this Court in various proceedings, wherein, she was not a party.

2. After perusal of the notice dated 25.11.2024, we find that it does not refer to any order of the Court. The notice has been issued as petitioner has failed to produce any document of approved plan which was required to be obtained under law before proceeding with construction. Though notice was issued way back on 25.11.2024, petitioner did not take any remedy, much less remedy of filing revision under Section 80A of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and after more than one year, she has filed the present petition.

3. Viewed from any angle, petition is frivolous and has no

merits. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim application is also dismissed. (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 19.01.2026 Index :

Yes/No Yes/No kpl To

1. The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Chennai 600 003.

2. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board Kamarajar Salai, Chennai 600 005.

3. The District Collector Chennai District, Chennai.

4. The Zonal Officer Zone IX, Greater Chennai Corporation Chennai.

5. The Tahsildar Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.

6. The Inspector of Police Pondy Bazar Police Station T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.

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

(kpl) 19.01.2026