M.Kamaal v. The Commissioner

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN and C.M.P.(MD)No.15272 & 15273 of 2025 M.Kamaal ... Appellant /Vs./ 1.The Commissioner Madurai City Municipal Corporation Madurai 2.The Assistant Commissioner, Zone - 3 (Central), Madurai City Municipal Corporation Madurai.

3.S.Shahida Parveen, ... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in WP(MD). No.19571 of 2025 dated 21.072025 passed by this Court.

1/5

For Appellant : Mr.J.Sankarapandian For R1 & R2 : Ms.S.Devasena Standing Counsel For R3 : Ms.D.Yasmin Begum

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.) The appellant is the writ petitioner and had challenged the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, ordering demolition of the property at Door No.1, New Ward No.61, Ansari Nagar 4th Street, Ansari Nagar, Madurai District (premises/premises in question) He says that he is running a coffee shop under the name and style of Darling and Darling Coffee shop in the aforesaid premises. The order impugned in the writ petition ordered demolition of the premises on the ground that it is dilapidated and structurally unsound.

2.The writ petition had come to be dismissed on 21.07.2025., the Court noting that sufficient opportunity had been granted to the appellant as orders had been passed as early as on 28.05.2024, it was only post proper inspection by the Corporation that the building had been certified as lacking in stability and in a very bad condition. 2/5

3.Considering the fact that the appellant had been in occupation since 1988, the Court granted grace period of 30 days to the appellant to vacate the premises. The appellant has not complied with the orders of the Court and has instead, filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for R3/the owner of the premises has filed a compilation including photographs, which indicates the horrifying condition of the building. There are huge cracks on walls and parts of the building look like they would collapse at any minute.

4.The learned counsel for the Corporation reiterates the position that the building poses a public threat. We agree, particularly as it is a coffee shop, soliciting the public. In the aforesaid circumstances and having regard to the facts involved, we confirm the order of the writ Court reiterating that the appellant should vacate the property forthwith. 5.Learned counsel for R3 states that in order to frustrate the orders passed, the appellant has locked the premises. All measures will be taken by the respondents to ensure that vacant possession of the premises is obtained forthwith and they are at liberty to seek and obtain police protection for such poses, if necessary. 3/5

6.Learned counsel for R3 also submits that R3 has moved a contempt petition in Cont.P.(MD)No.2540 of 2025, in which the appellant has been granted time till 23rd of September, 2025 to vacate the premises. That order is reiterated.

7.This Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. [A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,] 17.09.2025 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes ta To 1.The Commissioner Madurai City Municipal Corporation Madurai 2.The Assistant Commissioner, Zone - 3 (Central), Madurai City Municipal Corporation Madurai.

4/5

DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.

AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

ta 17.09.2025 5/5