High Court of Judicature at Madras Dismisses Writ Petition as Withdrawn in Building Lock and Seal Case. Petitioner sought mandamus to de-seal premises and allow rectification of building violations, but withdrew the petition; court dismissed as withdrawn without costs.

High Court: Madras High Court Bench: Principal
  • 49
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner initiated writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, praying for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents — the Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, the Greater Corporation of Chennai, and its Executive Engineer — to remove the lock and seal placed on his premises at Old Door No.7, New Door No.13, Meera Labai Street, Broadway, Chennai. The lock and seal had been affixed by the third respondent on 21.09.2023. The petitioner sought the de-sealing in order to carry out rectification of building violations and to restore the construction in compliance with the prevailing planning rules, requesting a reasonable time to do so. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 03.02.2025 before the Division Bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition and made an endorsement to that effect. Accepting the endorsement, the court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, with no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The order did not involve any adjudication of legal issues or merits; it disposed of the matter purely on the petitioner's withdrawal. No precedents or substantial legal principles were discussed or laid down.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Withdrawal of Petition - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Petitioner sought withdrawal of writ petition seeking mandamus for de-sealing of premises; court dismissed petition as withdrawn with no costs and closed connected miscellaneous petitions; no determination on merits. (Paras Not available)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

W.P.No.33038 of 2024

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Law Points

  • Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn
  • no costs
  • Article 226 of Constitution of India
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (MAD) (02) 146

W.P. No. 33038 of 2024 and W.M.P. Nos. 35806 & 35807 of 2024

2025-02-03

S.M. Subramaniam, K. Rajasekar

R. Mohan, E.C. Ramesh

R. Jaffar Khan

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009; 2. Greater Corporation of Chennai, Represented by its Commissioner, Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003; 3. The Executive Engineer, Zone 5, Greater Corporation of Chennai, Seven Wells, Chennai – 600 001

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking mandamus to de-seal premises and allow rectification of building violations.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 to remove the lock and seal placed on his premises on 21.09.2023 and to permit him to carry out rectification of violations as per planning rules.

Filing Reason

The 3rd respondent had locked and sealed the premises on 21.09.2023, and the petitioner desired to rectify the building violations and restore the building in compliance with planning rules.

Submissions/Arguments

Learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition and made an endorsement to that effect.

Judgment Excerpts

In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed W.P. No. 33038 of 2024 seeking mandamus. On 03.02.2025, when the matter was taken up, the petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition. The court dismissed it as withdrawn, with no costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Customs Duty Demand on Goods Remaining in Bonded Warehouse Beyond Permitted Period. Duty Rate Determined Under Section 15(1)(b) Proviso and Section 72 of Customs Act, 1962, Not Date of Actual Removal After Expiry.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Refund of Stamp Duty Paid on Agreement for Sale That Did Not Materialize Due to Market Downturn. Petitioner entitled to refund under Sections 47 and 48 of Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 as instrument was not followed by conveyan...