M.Pandian, v. The Commissioner
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN W.P.(MD)No.31412 of 2025 & W.M.P.(MD)No.24614 of 2025 1.M.Pandian 2.P.Hemalatha ... Petitioners /Vs./ 1.The Commissioner, Trichirappalli City Municipal Corporation, Bharathidasan Salai, Cantonment, Trichy-1, Trichy District.
2.The Assistant Commissioner, Zone - I, Trichirappalli City Municipal Corporation, Bharathidasan Salai, Cantonment, Trichy-1, Trichy District.
... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to 2nd respondent proceedings in F1/3119/2018(sri), 1/5
dated on 24.10.2025, quash the same and further direct the respondents to defer lock and seal proceedings till no objection certificate from Archeological department obtained by the petitioners. For Petitioners : Mr.Jahir Hussain for Mr.R.Sundar For Respondents : Mr.J.Saiprasad for M/s.R.B.Associates
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH, J.) The petitioners had earlier instituted W.P.(MD)No.29726 of 2025 challenging the notice dated nil. A further direction was sought to grant planning permission to the petitioners' property at Trichy District, Trichy Registration District, Trichy Joint No.3, Sub-Registrar Office range, Municipal Town old 5th ward, Trichy Fort, Vanapattarai street on eastern side, old 4th block, old T.S.No.95.
2. The main contention of the petitioners was that the lock and seal notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Zone-1, Trichirappalli City Municipal Corporation under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country 2/5
Planning Act, 1971 (Act), was not even dated. Hence, the writ petition was disposed directing the respondents to issue notice afresh.
3. They obliged by issuing the notice impugned in this writ petition, which is dated 24.10.2025, however granting time only till 03.11.2025.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention to Section 56 of the Act and says that the notice must grant a period of not less than one (1) month to take steps as specified in the notice.
5. We are disappointed with the manner in which the notice had been issued carelessly enabling the petitioners to approach this Court time and again merely to delay the statutory action. We are however left with no choice as Section 56 of the Act does provide for a minimum period of minimum one month to be provided to the petitioners in the notice.
6. Hence, we merely state that the impugned notice dated 24.10.2025 shall be read so as to provide time till 24.11.2025. Notice is otherwise sustained.
3/5
7. The Assistant Commissioner, Zone-1, Trichirappalli City Municipal Corporation (R2) who has issued this impugned notice dated 24.10.2025 shall pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee attached to this Bench, within a period of one (1) week from today.
8. This writ petition is dismissed except for the modification made and cost imposed herein. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,] 10.11.2025 (2/2) NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes mbi To The Assistant Commissioner, Zone - I, Trichirappalli City Municipal Corporation, Bharathidasan Salai, Cantonment, Trichy-1, Trichy District.
4/5
Dr.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
mbi Order made in Dated:
10.11.2025 (2/2) 5/5