Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the owner of a building at Door No.383, Mint Street, Chennai, challenging a de-occupation notice dated 17.11.2023 issued by the Assistant Engineer, Greater Chennai Corporation under Sections 56(2)(A), 57, and 85 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The notice alleged unauthorized construction and sought to initiate action including locking, sealing, and demolition. The petitioner contended that the building was old and that the notice was issued without fault on his part, seeking to quash the notice and restrain the authorities from taking coercive steps. The respondents argued that all necessary actions had been initiated and further steps were halted only due to the pendency of the writ petition. The High Court, after hearing both sides, observed that a writ petition against a statutory notice is not maintainable as a matter of routine. A writ would lie only if the notice is issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction or if mala fides are specifically alleged and the concerned officer is impleaded in his personal capacity. Since the petitioner did not raise any such grounds, the court held that the proper course was for the petitioner to submit an explanation with supporting documents to the authorities for consideration. The court also noted that the authorities are empowered under the Town and Country Planning Act to verify the building plan permission and, in case of unauthorized construction, to take demolition action following due process. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, the interim order was vacated, and the connected miscellaneous petition was dismissed as well. However, the court granted liberty to the petitioner to submit his explanation to the authorities within one week, with a direction that the officials consider the same and proceed in accordance with law. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Against Notice - Maintainability - Article 226, Constitution of India - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash a de-occupation notice under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, holding that writs against notices are not maintainable as a matter of routine; they are entertainable only if the notice is issued by an incompetent authority without jurisdiction or if mala fides are alleged and the authority is impleaded personally - Held that since the petitioner failed to raise such grounds, the petition was dismissed but with liberty to submit an explanation to the authorities within one week (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the de-occupation notice dated 17.11.2023 issued under Sections 56(2)(A) and 57 read with Section 85 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 is liable to be quashed.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to submit an explanation along with documents within one week to the official respondents, who shall consider the same and proceed with the actions following the procedures as expeditiously as possible. The interim order was vacated, and the connected miscellaneous petition was dismissed. No costs.
Law Points
- Writ against notice not entertainable in routine manner
- writ lies only if notice issued by authority without jurisdiction or allegation of mala fides
- in case of mala fides authority must be impleaded personally
- person receiving notice expected to submit explanation with documents to establish case
- authorities empowered to verify building plan permission and initiate demolition for unauthorized construction following due process
