Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 ss. 57, 80(A), 85
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The 1st respondent is directed to dispose of the aforesaid Special Revision Petition filed by the petitioners dated 29.05.2025 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4.…
Judgment
WP No. 20846 of 2026__________Page1 of 5IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29-05-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. R. SWAMINATHANANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANANWP No. 20846 of 2026andWMP.Nos.22481 & 22484 of 20261.N.M.Shadiq BashaS/o Nagoor meeran, Door No 14/9, Burrah Shaib Street, Anna salai, Chennai 600 002.
N.M. Mahboob Basha,S/o Nagoor Meeran, Door No 14/9 Burrah Shaib Street, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002...Petitioner(s)Vs1.The Additional Chief Secretary (Technical)Housing and urban Development Department, St George, Fort, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.2.The Executive EngineerZone V, Greater Chennai CorporationNo 62, Basin Bridge Road, Old Washermanpet, Chennai 600 021..Respondent(s)PRAYER: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent to consider the representation dated 05.05.2026 and consequently forbear the 2nd respondent from initiating any coercive action pursuant to the impugned Lock and Seal Notice No Dn /063/016/2024 dated 03.05.2024 issued under sections 57 read with Section 85 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971, in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 20846 of 2026__________Page2 of 5respect of the building situated at 14/9, Burrah Sahib street Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002 till the disposal of the Special Revision petition dated 29.05.2025 filed under Section 80(A) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971 pending before the 1st Respondent. For Petitioner(s):Mr.K.Siva SubramanianFor Respondent(s):Mr.M.SivavarthananGovt. Counsel for R1.Mr.D.B.R.PrabhuStanding Counsel for R2.ORDER(Order of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)Heard both sides. 2. Questioning the lock and seal notice issued by the 2nd respondent, the petitioners have preferred a Special Revision Petition under Section 80(A) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 before the 1st respondent.
Operative part
The 1st respondent is directed to dispose of the aforesaid Special Revision Petition filed by the petitioners dated 29.05.2025 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. 5. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the issue. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 20846 of 2026__________Page3 of 56. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (G.R.S.,J.) (V.L.N.,J.) 29-05-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NonvTo1.The Additional Secretary (Technical)Housing and urban Development Department, St George, Fort, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.2.The Executive EngineerZone V, Greater Chennai CorproationNo 62, Basin Bridge Road, Old Washermanpet, Chennai 600 002. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 20846 of 2026__________Page4 of 5G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.ANDV.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.nvWP No. 20846 of 2026andWMP.Nos.22481 & 22484 of 202629-05-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 20846 of 2026__________Page5 of 5
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 — ss. 57, 80(A), 85.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.