Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Thirumalai, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a notice dated 19.01.2026 issued by the 4th respondent (Assistant Executive Engineer, Greater Chennai Corporation) under Section 128(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 (TNULB Act). The petitioner sought to quash the notice and direct the respondents to provide rehabilitation, alternative accommodation, or just compensation before any eviction. The petitioner claimed he was not an encroacher and had submitted a representation in response to the notice. The respondents, represented by the Standing Counsel, argued that the procedures under Section 128 of the TNULB Act were being scrupulously followed and that the petitioner's representation would be considered before any final decision. The court observed that the petitioner had not established any legal right and that a writ against a show cause notice is not entertainable. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without any order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability of Writ Against Show Cause Notice - A writ petition challenging a show cause notice is not entertainable unless the notice is without jurisdiction or issued by an incompetent authority - The court held that the petitioner failed to establish any legal right and the notice was merely a preliminary step, hence the writ was dismissed (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition challenging a show cause notice issued under Section 128(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 is maintainable
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Writ against show cause notice not entertainable
- No legal right established
- Procedure under Section 128 TNULB Act must be followed
