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
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (03) 203
W.P.No.11305 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.12317 and 12319 of 2026
S.M. Subramaniam, K. Surender
Ms.S.Prathibaa for Petitioner, Ms.Aswini Devi .K for Respondents 1 to 4
The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation; The Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central); The Executive Engineer, Zone VI; The Assistant Executive Engineer, Zone VI; Narendra Kumar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 challenging a show cause notice for encroachment
Remedy Sought
Quashing of notice dated 19.01.2026 and direction for rehabilitation, alternative accommodation or compensation before eviction
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed he was not an encroacher and challenged the notice issued under Section 128(1)(b) of TNULB Act
Issues
Whether a writ petition against a show cause notice under Section 128(1)(b) of TNULB Act is maintainable
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner submitted he is not an encroacher and had submitted a representation
Respondents submitted that procedures under Section 128 are being followed and representation will be considered
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition against a show cause notice is not entertainable unless the notice is without jurisdiction or issued by an incompetent authority. The petitioner failed to establish any legal right.
Judgment Excerpts
The notice issued under Section 128(1)(b) of The Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 dated 19.01.2026 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
In view of the fact that the petitioner has not established any legal right and more so, no writ against the show cause notice is entertainable, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed writ petition on 25.03.2026 challenging notice dated 19.01.2026. Court heard counsel and dismissed petition on same day.
Acts & Sections
- Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998: 128(1)(b)
