CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE v. LAKSHMINARAYANANWMP

WP(MD) No.12224 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30-04-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANANWMP(MD) Nos.8987 and 8988 of 2025INWP(MD) No.12224 of 2025The Pennington CommitteeRep. by its Secretary, A.M.M.Radha Shankar, No.9,Thiruvenkata Annaigal Street (Library Street), Srivilliputhur. Petitioner(s) VsThe District CollectorViruthunagar District, Virudhunagar. And 4 othersRespondent(s) For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.RadhakrishnanSenior Counsel for Mr.V.Shathurthi RajaFor Respondent(s): Mr.M.Ajmal KhanAdditional Advocate Generalassisted by Mr.S.Shaji BinoSpecial Government Pleader for R-1 and R-2ORDERWhen the matter came up for admission, I had granted an order of interim stayand requested the learned Additional Advocate General, who represented therespondents to get instructions.2. I heard Mr.V.Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Shathurthi1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) No.12224 of 2025Raja for the petitioner and Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Additional Advocate Generalassisted by Mr.S.Shaji Bino, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents1 and 2.3. The petitioner challenges the final order passed by the second respondentdated 11.04.2025 and the consequential order passed by the third respondent dated18.04.2025. 4. The second respondent, in exercise of the powers under Section 152 ofBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has directed demolition of the buildingsbelonging to the petitioner situated at Survey Nos.1662/1, 1662/115 in Block 15,Ward 1, Srivilliputhur Town, Virudhunagar District. The second respondent seems tohave obtained a report from an Expert Committee, appointed by her, on 07.04.2025.On that basis, she had ordered demolition of the buildings. Pursuant to the orderpassed by the second respondent, the third respondent had passed the consequentialorder dated 18.04.2025, directing disconnection of electricity to the premises of thepetitioner. 5. Mr.V.Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel, attacks the impugned order asfollows:(i) No show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and straightaway, a finalorder was passed on the directions of the District Collector – first respondent;2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) No.12224 of 2025(ii) The complaint before the first respondent had been given after an order ofinjunction had been granted by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.7625 of 2025;(iii) The order is tainted by malafides as the petitioner thwarted the attempts ofthe respondents 4 and 5 to take possession of the petitioner Committee.6. Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Additional Advocate General, who has beeninstructed by Mr.S.Shaji Bino, learned Special Government Pleader, pleads as follows:(i) In terms of Section 152 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, thesecond respondent has the jurisdiction to take immediate steps to ensure that unsafebuildings are brought down;(ii) The second respondent had not acted suo motu, but had obtained anopinion from a Committee of experts, who have certified that the building wasunstable;(iii) Even if this Court comes to a conclusion that the procedure followed by therespondents is not in accordance with BNSS, the impugned order can be set aside andremanded to the authority to give an opportunity to the petitioner and to pass freshorders.7. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. I have gonethrough the records.8. There are situations, where if the proceedings are laid over for some time,3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) No.12224 of 2025sanity will be restored on all sides and precipitous action will not be taken by oneside or the other.9. In the present case, the second respondent had passed an order on 08.03.2025,informing the petitioner Committee that it is the desire of the first respondent tonominate 13 individuals as members of the petitioner Committee. This was resistedby the writ petitioner. Soon thereafter, the second respondent informed the petitionerthat a special general body meeting would be held on 14.03.2025 at 11.00 AM and thathe would preside over the same. Challenging the same, a Writ Petition was presentedbefore this Court in W.P.(MD).No.7625 of 2025.10. On 20.03.2025, this Court admitted the Writ Petition and granted an order ofad-interim injunction. Despite the same, on 22.03.2025, the second respondentconvened a meeting at the premises of the petitioner. Prior to entering the premises;the lock, that had been put over the doors, were broken open on the request of oneShanmuganathan, a former office member of the petitioner Committee. Thisconstrained the writ petitioner to move this Court by way of a Contempt Petition inCont.P.(MD).No.1017 of 2025.11. When these facts were brought to the notice of the learned AdditionalAdvocate General-II, who was then appearing for the respondents, he ensured thatthe orders of the Court are complied with and the keys of the building were handed4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) No.12224 of 2025over to the petitioner Committee on 04.04.2025.12. This Court appreciated the efforts taken by the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral – II and closed the Contempt Petition recording that the position, thatprevailed on the date of passing of the order, had been restored.13. Yesterday (29.04.2025), when W.P.(MD).No.7625 of 2025 was taken up forhearing, the learned Additional Advocate General-I informed this Court that theproceedings issued by the District Collector nominating 13 persons were onlyrecommendatory in nature and that it was not binding on the petitioner Committee.Recording his statement, the Writ Petition was disposed of.14. Soon after the interim order had been granted by this Court, the firstrespondent/District Collector had issued a direction to the petitioner Committee tosubmit a 'white paper' regarding its affairs. That order too was challenged before thisCourt by way of a Writ Petition. The said Writ Petition was allowed by this Courtholding that the first respondent does not have the jurisdiction to demand issuance ofa 'white paper'. It is during the interregnum period that the present impugned orderhas come to be passed. 15. A perusal of the records produced by the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral shows that one Vadabadrasaiyee had given a representation to the DistrictCollector on 20.03.2025, stating that the Pennington market, which is owned by the5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) No.12224 of 2025writ petitioner is not being maintained properly and is in a dilapidated condition. Onthe same day, the first respondent had sent the papers to the second respondent andin a lightning speed, the second respondent had constituted a Committee to inspectthe building. The Committee is said to have inspected the building and hadsubmitted a report on 07.04.2025. The learned Additional Advocate General-I hasbeen kind enough to produce the report before this Court. 16. A perusal of the report shows that the Committee has not submitted a reportfor immediate demolition of the building. It has pointed out defects in themaintenance, which, it has suggested, ought to be rectified for the strength of stabilityof the building.17. Looking at the impugned order in isolation, I would necessarily have toagree with the learned Additional Advocate General. However, the narration of thefacts stated above shows that disputes have arisen between the petitioner and theRevenue Department from March 2025 onwards. The present proceeding is anoffshoot of the said dispute. This is a prima facie conclusion for the purpose ofdisposal of the stay application. 18. I should point out that the present office holders of the first and secondrespondents have been impleaded as respondents 4 and 5 and without their counterto the main Writ Petition, it might not be proper on the part of this Court to give any6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) No.12224 of 2025finding on the malafides. For the purpose of disposal of this application, it is sufficeto record that the second respondent had not passed any preliminary order nor hadfurnished the report of the expert committee to the writ petitioner. It is toofundamental that any order passed against a person should be after giving anopportunity to the said person. The fashion in which one order after other has beenpassed and the manner in which the papers have been moved faster than the speed oflight from the hands of the complainant to the first respondent, from the firstrespondent to the second respondent and from the second respondent to theformation of the Committee, do raise certain doubts about the purpose for which thepower has been invoked. This too is only a prima facie finding. A detailed analysis isreserved for the purpose of final disposal. 19. As I had come to the conclusion that the petitioner had not been served witha preliminary order and straightaway, a final order of demolition had been passed,the petitioner had made out a prima facie case. 20. Furthermore, it is not in dispute that 242 shops are operating from thePennington Market and the interest of those persons, who are in occupation of thepremises, require to be protected. It is an old proverb that 'when elephants fight, it isthe grass on the ground, which suffers'. On account of the dispute between thepetitioner and the respondents 1 to 5, the shop keepers need not suffer.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) No.12224 of 202521. Taking overall circumstances into consideration, the interim order of staygranted by this Court on 24.04.2025 is made absolute.22. Post the Writ Petition in the usual course. sd/- 30/04/2025 / TRUE COPY / /05/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. LMTO1. The District CollectorViruthunagar District, Virudhunagar.2. Executive Magistrate cum the Sub ColelctorSivakasi Division, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.3. Assistant Engineer (Electrical)Urban / Market Bazaar, TANGEDCO, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.+1CC to Spl.Government Pleader SR.No.30402 (F) DT.02/05/2025 ORDER IN WMP(MD) No.8987 of 2025 IN WP(MD) No.12224 of 2025 Date :30/04/2025SA/SAR. /22.05.2025/8P/5CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023. 8/8