M.S.Subash v. The Commissioner,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI W.P.No.32691 of 2018 and W.M.P. No.37888 of 2018 M.S. Subash Petitioner vs.
1.
The Commissioner Coimbatore Municipal Corporation Coimbatore 2.
Umarani Respondents (R2 impleaded as per order dated 17.02.2025 in W.M.P.No.10204 of 2024 in W.P.No.32691 of 2018) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent pertaining to notice dated 12.11.2018 and quash the same.
For petitioner Mr. A. Arasu Sanga Tamil for Mr. K.S. Karthik Raja For R1 Mr. V. Ravi Special Government Pleader for Mr. Najeeb Usman Khan For R2 Mr. T. Harish Chowdhary for M/s. T.M. Naidu & Co.
Page Nos.1/8
ORDER
[made by M.SUNDAR, J.] In the captioned 'writ petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity), Mr. A. Arasu Sanga Tamil, learned counsel representing Mr.K.S. Karthik Raja, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner, Mr.V. Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader representing Mr. Najeeb Usman Khan, learned Standing Counsel for R1 and Mr. T. Harish Chowdhary, learned counsel for R2 (Uma Rani, wife of Shanmugasundaram) are before this Court.
2.
The legal drill at hand is fairly simple as a notice dated 12.11.2018 issued by R1 inter alia under Section 258(4) of erstwhile 'Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981 (Tamil Nadu Act 25 of 1981)' (hereinafter 'CCMC Act' for the sake of brevity) (hereinafter 'impugned notice' for the sake of convenience and clarity) has been called in question and the short point is the impugned notice has been issued without show causing the writ petitioner. 3.
Before we proceed further, we deem it appropriate to make the obtaining legal position clear.
Page Nos.2/8
4.
The Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, (Tamil Nadu Act 9 of 1999) (hereinafter 'the TNULB Act' for the sake of brevity) kicked in on 13.04.2023. In and by TNULB Act, CCMC Act was repealed vide Section 200(1)(d) but things done, made, instituted and executed under the erstwhile CCMC Act stand saved vide Section 200(3)(e). Therefore, the impugned notice survives in the light of Section 200(1)(d) read with Section 200(3)(e) of TNULB Act. 5.
This Court having set out the obtaining statutory position, proceeds to consider the simple point that writ petitioner has not been show caused. We deem it appropriate to write that it will serve the purpose if the impugned notice is directed to be treated as a 'show cause notice' (hereinafter 'SCN' for the sake of convenience and clarity) under Section 128(1)(b) of TNULB Act. We do so. 6.
In the light of the narrative, discussion and dispositive reasoning thus far and statement of obtaining statutory position, the following order is made:
Page Nos.3/8
(i) Impugned notice is not set aside but the same shall now be treated as an SCN under Section 128(1)(b) of TNULB Act;
(ii) The SCN under Section 128(1)(b) of TNULB Act shall be construed to have been served on the writ petitioner today (17.02.2025);
(iii) The above means that the writ petitioner/noticee can send a response/ representation to SCN within seven days from today i.e., on or before 24.02.2025;
(iv) On writ petitioner sending such a response/representation within the aforementioned timeline, R1 shall pass 'final orders' vide proviso to Section 128(1)(b) of TNULB Act;
(v) If the writ petitioner does not send a response/representation to SCN within aforementioned timeline, impugned notice will rescind to its form as issued and it will be open to R1 to proceed further in accordance with the same;
(vi) As regards 13.03.2024 order made by another Hon'ble Division Bench, it is open to the writ petitioner to file a suit qua R2, if so advised and if so desired; Page Nos.4/8
(vii) In this regard, we deem it appropriate to extract and reproduce the previous 13.03.2024 order made by another Hon'ble Division Bench which reads as follows:
Page Nos.5/8
(viii) It is made clear that no opinion or view has been expressed on this, all questions are left open and the Civil Court, if approached, shall deal with the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law;
(ix) Though obvious, we make it clear that coercive action, if any, shall be subject to and depending on 'final orders' to be made by R1 under proviso to Section 128(1)(b) of TNULB Act.
Page Nos.6/8
7.
Captioned main WP stands disposed of in the aforesaid manner with the aforesaid observations and directives. As we have made it clear that coercive action, if any, shall be subject to and depending on 'final orders' of R1 under proviso to Section 128(1)(b), captioned WMP becomes otiose and the same is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S., J.) (K.G.T., J.) 17.02.2025 cad Index :
Yes/No NC :
Yes/No Page Nos.7/8
M.SUNDAR, J.
and K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
cad To The Commissioner Coimbatore Municipal Corporation Coimbatore W.P. No.32691 of 2018 17.02.2025 Page Nos.8/8