Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ms. Vasundhra, who is the widow of late Vetri Duraisamy, constructed a building in Paramankeni village, Chengalpet District. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Town and Country Planning, issued a notice dated 10.04.2024 under Section 56(1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, alleging that the construction was unauthorized and lacked planning permission. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the notice. She had obtained only panchayat permission and contended that this was sufficient. The respondent authority argued that planning permission was mandatory and the notice was valid. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justices S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekar, held that a writ against a notice is not entertainable unless the notice is issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the grounds raised on merits required an inquiry into documents and evidence, which the High Court cannot undertake in writ proceedings. The Court observed that the petitioner had developed the building unauthorizedly without planning permission and that mere panchayat permission was insufficient. It held that the High Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry or decide disputed issues of this nature. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed. The petitioner was directed to submit her explanation and documents to the authority, which would then conduct an inquiry, verify the evidence, and pass final orders, including taking action to remove the unauthorized construction if found, following due process. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability of Writ against Notice - Article 226, Constitution of India; Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, Section 56(1) - The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash a notice alleging unauthorized construction without planning permission. The Court held that no writ against a notice is entertainable unless the notice is issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction; the grounds on merits require factual inquiry and the High Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry. The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to submit her explanation and documents to the authority for inquiry and final orders. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against a notice issued under Section 56(1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, when the authority is competent and the issues raised are on merits requiring factual inquiry.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. Petitioner directed to submit explanation and documents to authority for inquiry and final orders. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition also dismissed.
Law Points
- No writ against notice is entertainable unless notice issued by incompetent authority having no jurisdiction
- merits cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings
- High Court cannot conduct roving enquiry or decide disputed issues
- notice under Section 56(1) requires explanation and inquiry by authority
