✦ Madras High Court

Judgment · High Court

4 min read

Case at a glance

Judgment

W.P.No.42753 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 03.02.2026CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICEANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGANW.P.No.42753 of 2025and W.M.P.No.47824 of 2025KS Nagar Residential Welfare Association HosurRep. by its President, R.Baskar, S/o.Rajendran, No.5/151 2nd Cross St, Kuppusamy Nagar, Gokul Nagar Road, Hosur Krishnagiri DistrictPetitionerVs1.The District Collector Collectorate, Krishnagiri District2.The Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Hosur Krishnagiri District3.The Tahsildar Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District4.The Inspector of Police Hosur Police Station, Krishnagiri District______________Page 1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.42753 of 20255.S.Srimurugan (Owner of Plot No.150/1 First Street, Kuppusamy Nagar) No.24 Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Near Cambridge School, Hosur Krishnagiri District6.S.Subbaraj S/o.Seeni Reddy (Owner of Plot No.151/10 First Street, Kuppusamy Nagar) No.26/20-AA 3rd Cross Street Bharathidasan Nagar, Hosur Krishnagiri DistrictRespondentsPRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to forthwith take all necessary steps to halt the illegal construction of the hotel on the said plots and enforce the zoning and development control laws and consequently direct the 4th respondent, the Inspector of Police, to take appropriate steps to prevent unauthorized commercial activity in the residential locality and maintain law and order to protect the interests and safety of the residents. For Petitioner: Ms.M.Pruntha for Mr.J.PradeepFor Respondents: Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath Government Advocate for R1 and R3Mr.T.Balaji Standing Counsel for R2 ______________Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.42753 of 2025Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R4Ms.R.Divyapreathika for Mr.R.Bharathkumar for R5 and R6ORDER(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

The writ petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to forthwith take all necessary steps to halt the illegal construction of the hotel on the plots and enforce the zoning and development control laws and also to direct the fourth respondent to take appropriate steps to prevent unauthorised commercial activity in the residential locality and maintain law and order to protect the interests and safety of the residents.

3.

The case of the petitioner is that the private respondents are illegally raising a commercial building in a residential area and ______________Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.42753 of 2025after complaints having been made, the Commissioner of Corporation sent a communication on 24.7.2024 initiating proceedings under Sections 133(5), 180 and 134 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998. Despite notices and action being initiated, the private respondents are continuing with the construction unabated. Therefore, the petitioner had to approach this Court.

4.

In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, it has been stated that when it came to the notice of the official respondents that unauthorised construction is being raised, it immediately initiated statutory action against respondents 5 and 6 and issued notices under law directing them to immediately cease all construction activities. According to the second respondent, pursuant to the notices, the construction activity has been stopped. The Corporation authorities are keeping a weather eye on the property to ensure that no further construction is carried out in violation of law and, as on date, the construction remains fully halted. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the ______________Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.42753 of 2025 Corporation also initiated criminal prosecution against fifth and sixth respondents and the same was taken on file as S.T.C.No.993 of 2024 by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Hosur, on the alleged commission of offence of unauthorised construction. Respondents 5 and 6 were convicted under Section 275 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and were imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- each, totalling Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, it is not correct to say that no effective legal action required under law has been taken.

5.

Learned counsel appearing for the fifth and sixth respondents would submit that, at the instance of the petitioner, for personal reasons, a frivolous complaint has been lodged and based on the said complaint, the local authorities are harassing the fifth and sixth respondents and even though no illegality is committed, the construction has been stopped. It is further submitted that a revised construction plan was submitted before the Corporation and the said application is pending consideration.

6.

Taking into consideration the aforesaid stand taken by the official as well as the private respondents, it is clear that though the ______________Page 5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.42753 of 2025private respondents started raising construction of hotel, the Corporation has effectively intervened, action has been taken, prosecution launched, fine imposed and construction is stopped.

7.

Therefore, no further orders are required to be passed in this matter. The writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. It is made clear that we have not commented upon the legality and validity of the action of the Corporation. (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 03.02.2026 Index: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NobbrTo:1.The District Collector Collectorate, Krishnagiri District2.The Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Hosur, Krishnagiri District3.The Tahsildar, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District4.The Inspector of Police Hosur Police Station, Krishnagiri District______________Page 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.42753 of 2025THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE ANDG.ARUL MURUGAN,J.bbrW.P.No.42753 of 2025 03.02.2026______________Page 7 of 7

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Madras High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments