Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition for Non-Prosecution in Unauthorised Construction Case. Petitioner failed to appear on two consecutive hearings, leading to dismissal for default.

High Court: Madras High Court
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, L. Saravanan, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the second and third respondents (Commissioner of Salem Municipal Corporation and Zonal Chairman, Kondalampatti) to demolish unauthorised construction of two feet square pedestals located between Angu coffee bar and Shanthi Hospital on Itteri Road within ward No. 55 of Salem Municipal Corporation. When the matter was called on 16.03.2026, there was no representation for the petitioner, so the matter was listed under the caption 'For Dismissal' on 17.03.2026. On that day as well, there was no representation for the petitioner. Consequently, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Surender, dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution. No costs were awarded, and all connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The court did not adjudicate on the merits of the case due to the petitioner's absence.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Dismissal for Non-Prosecution - Writ of Mandamus - Petitioner sought demolition of unauthorised pedestals but failed to appear on two consecutive hearings - Court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution with no costs - Held that absence of petitioner indicates lack of interest in prosecution (Paras 2-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking mandamus to demolish unauthorised construction should be entertained when the petitioner fails to appear.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Law Points

  • Dismissal for non-prosecution
  • Writ of mandamus
  • No representation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026:MHC:1142

WP No. 33681 of 2022

2026-03-17

S. M. Subramaniam, K. Surender

2026:MHC:1142

Mr. T. Arunkumar (Additional Government Pleader for R1), Mr. N. Devi (Standing Counsel for R2 & R3)

L. Saravanan

1. The Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Government of Tamil Nadu; 2. The Commissioner, Salem Municipal Corporation; 3. The Zonal Chairman, Kondalampatti, Salem

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus to demolish unauthorised construction.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought direction to respondents 2 and 3 to demolish unauthorised pedestals.

Filing Reason

Alleged unauthorised construction of two feet square pedestals on Itteri Road.

Issues

Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioner fails to appear.

Submissions/Arguments

No appearance for petitioner on both hearings.

Ratio Decidendi

A writ petition may be dismissed for non-prosecution if the petitioner fails to appear on consecutive hearings, indicating lack of interest in pursuing the remedy.

Judgment Excerpts

When the matter was called on 16.03.2026, there was no representation for the petitioner. Thus, the matter was listed today under the caption 'For Dismissal'. Today also, there is no representation for the petitioner. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.

Procedural History

Writ petition filed on unknown date. Listed on 16.03.2026, no appearance; listed again on 17.03.2026 under 'For Dismissal', again no appearance; dismissed on 17.03.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition for Non-Prosecution in Unauthorised Construction Case. Petitioner failed to appear on two consecutive hearings, leading to dismissal for default.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Quashes Show Cause Notices in Tenancy Case Due to 33-Year Delay and Land Conversion -- Proceedings Under Bombay Tenancy Act Barred When Land Converted to Non-Agricultural Use