Ragavendra Hospital v. The Madurai Corporation

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.04.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN and W.M.P(MD)No.7574 of 2026 Ragavendra Hospital, Through its Proprietor, M.Murugan ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Madurai Corporation, Through its Commissioner, Madurai.

2.The City Planner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai.

... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned notice issued by the first and second respondents in Form I 1/6

and Form IV in Notice No.Z4/D1/004988/2024 dated 23.03.2026 and 05.02.2026 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan For Respondents : Ms.S.Devasena Standing Counsel

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.) Challenging the impugned notices issued by the first and second respondents in Form I and Form IV dated 23.03.2026 and 05.02.2026 respectively, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 2.The petitioner, proprietor of a multi-specialty hospital in Madurai, purchased the property in 2003 and constructed the building with valid approvals obtained between 2004 and 2009. The hospital has been functioning for over 20 years, serving especially poor patients. 2/6

3.Following a complaint by one Mayilsamy alleging building violations, proceedings were initiated before the Ombudsman, who directed that action be taken only after a decision by the High Level Committee. However, the Corporation issued a lock-and-seal notice without awaiting the Committee's decision and without following due procedure. Despite the petitioner's reply highlighting the Ombudsman's order, the Corporation continued its action, which the petitioner claims is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, pursuant to a query raised by one Mayilsamy in public interest regarding the action taken against the petitioner, the impugned notices came to be issued.

5.We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 3/6

6.On consideration of the materials placed on record, it is seen that the allegation against the petitioner pertains to certain deviations in the construction. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already submitted a revised plan and that the matter is presently pending consideration before the High Level Committee. The principal allegation appears to relate to non-provision of adequate car parking. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that car parking facilities have now been provided in the adjacent land and that the same has also been brought to the notice of the High Level Committee.

7.When the matter is thus pending before the High Level Committee, the issuance of the impugned notices is premature. The issue has not yet attained finality, and no action ought to have been initiated pending such consideration. Merely on the basis of a query raised by the complainant, the respondents cannot issue such notices in a routine manner. 4/6

8.In such view of the matter, the impugned notices issued by the first and second respondents are liable to be quashed. However, liberty is granted to the Corporation to initiate appropriate action, if warranted, based on the decision to be taken by the High Level Committee. 9.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. [N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.] 07.04.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes ps To 1.The Madurai Corporation, Through its Commissioner, Madurai.

2.The City Planner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai.

5/6

N.SATHISH KUMAR , J.

and M.JOTHIRAMAN , J.

ps DATED : 07.04.2026 6/6