Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
W.P.No.36120 of 2024THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 03.12.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIANANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPANW.P.No.36120 of 2024andW.M.P.No.39013 of 2024B.Murugan ...Petitioner Vs.1.The Additional Secretary (Technical), Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai – 600 008.3.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai – 600 003. 4.The Executive Engineer, Zone – X, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.117, NSK Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024.1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.36120 of 20245.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Unit 29, Division – 127, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai. 6.R.S.Madhavan ...Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 to 5 herein from locking and/ or sealing the premises at Door No.2/4, Jai Nagar 6th Street, Jai Nagar, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 106 during the pendency of the application for regularization under Section 113-C. For Petitioner : Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi, Senior Counsel For Mr.L.PalannimuthuFor 1st Respondent: Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh, Additional Government Pleader For 2nd Respondent: Mr.C.Manoharan, CMDA For Respondents 3 to 5: Mr.Arun Babu for Corporation*****2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.36120 of 2024J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from locking and sealing the premises during the pendency of the application under Section 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act [for brevity 'the Act']. 2. The very application under Section 113-C of the Act was filed to regularize illegal construction which was made without obtaining sanctioned plan. If we are to give protection to the petitioner till such time the application under Section 113-C of the Act is disposed of, we are only encouraging the person, who is indulged in illegality. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant for encouraging such illegalities. We find such cases are on rise in the recent past. We are to blame ourselves for having invited such situation by showing undue indulgence to the violators. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.36120 of 2024 3. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (R.S.M., J.) (C.K., J.) 03.12.2024dsaIndex: NoNeutral Citation : NoSpeaking order4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.36120 of 2024To1.The Additional Secretary (Technical), Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai – 600 008.3.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai – 600 003. 4.The Executive Engineer, Zone – X, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.117, NSK Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024.5.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Unit 29, Division – 127, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.36120 of 2024R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.andC.KUMARAPPAN, J.dsaW.P.No.36120 of 202403.12.20246/6
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
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.