Judgment · High Court · 2026
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
1 W.P.(MD)NO.9699 OF 2022BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 01.06.2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN ANDTHE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMAW.P.(MD)No.9699 of 2022andW.M.P.(MD)No.6959 of 2022Fasanunisha Begam ... Petitioner Vs.1. The District Collector, O/o.the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District. (R1 cause title is amended vide order dated 19.05.2022 in W.M.P.(MD)No.7206 of 2022) 2. The Municipal Corporation Commissioner, O/o.the Municipal Corporation Commissioner, Keezakarai Municipality, Ramanathapuram District. 3. Mohamed Rahaman Beevi ... RespondentsPrayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to not to demolish the steps built in front of the petitioner's house without following the legal procedures and without issuing the proper notice and without giving sufficient opportunity to her by considering her representation dated 07.05.2022. 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 W.P.(MD)NO.9699 OF 2022For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.A.JinnahFor Respondents : Mr.M.P.Senthil, Government Advocate for R-1. Mr.A.Kannan for R-2. * * * O R D E R(Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner appears to have put up steps in front of her house. It is probably an encroachment on the road and that made the third respondent herein to lodge a complaint. The petitioner apprehends that without issuing notice, the municipal officials will arbitrarily demolish the same. The prayer in the writ petition is only for directing the authorities to follow due process of law. 3. No exception can be made to the said request. We direct the Commissioner, Keezakarai Municipality to adopt due process of law while taking action against the petitioner. This writ petition stands 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 W.P.(MD)NO.9699 OF 2022disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (R.POORNIMA, J.) 01st June 2026 NCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoInternet : Yes / NoPMUTo: The District Collector, O/o.the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District. 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 W.P.(MD)NO.9699 OF 2022G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. ANDR.POORNIMA, J.PMUW.P.(MD)No.9699 of 202201.06.20264/4
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 01 Jun 2026. The bench was G R SWAMINATHAN, R POORNIMA, ANDR POORNIMA.
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.