S.Jeyavel v. The Commissioner

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.12144 and 12145 of 2026 S.Jeyavel ... Petitioner vs.

The Commissioner, Thoothukudi City Municipal Corporation, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned notice in Na.Ka.No.A16/1416/2026, dated 02.06.2026 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to consider the petitioner for continuance up to the lease period i.e 30.06.2028 within the time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Louis For Respondent :Mr.N.Anandakumar ***** 1/5

O R D E R

The petitioner challenges the impugned notice dated 02.06.2026 issued by the respondent, whereby the petitioner has been called upon to vacate Shop No.5 (Non-Tax Assessment No.138/112) situated in the Palai Road Commercial Complex.

2.The petitioner states that he is in occupation of the said shop as a lessee and that, during the subsistence of the lease period, the impugned notice has been issued without providing an opportunity of hearing to him. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the impugned notice is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3.Mr. N. Anandakumar, learned Standing Counsel, who accepts notice on behalf of the respondent, on instructions, submitted that the impugned notice has been issued calling upon the petitioner to vacate the subject shop for the purpose of expanding the Head Office of the Corporation.

2/5

4.The arguments advanced on either side have been duly considered by this Court.

5.Admittedly, the petitioner is in occupation of the subject shop as a lessee and whether the lease executed in favour of the petitioner is still in existence or not requires consideration by the respondent. 6.Be that as it may, the impugned notice has been issued calling upon the petitioner to vacate the subject shop without providing an opportunity of hearing. In such circumstances, the impugned notice issued by the respondent is not only arbitrary and discriminatory, but also in violation of the principles of natural justice. On this ground alone, the impugned notice is liable to be set aside.

7.Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned notice dated 02.06.2026 issued by the respondent is set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondent to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of 3/5

hearing to the petitioner.

8.There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Index :Yes / No 16.06.2026 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No cmr 4/5

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

cmr 16.06.2026 5/5