The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to entertain a writ petition, the petitioner's locus standi, and the availability of alternative remedy. The judgment also emphasizes the need to address public nuisances and the court's power to direct necessary action.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 8 to ensure the immediate removal of the public nuisance complained off in the complaint and till then the business enterprise is asked to keep the enterprise shut down temporarily or at least keep a few floors of the said building closed until the public nuisances complained off herein are attended to fully by considering the representations dated 12.12.2022 and 17.12.2022 within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.)

The above Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 8 to ensure the immediate removal of the public nuisance complained of in the complaint and until the same is complied, the business enterprise is to be temporarily shut down or a few floors of the said building is to be closed, on considering the representations dated 12.12.2022 and 17.12.2022 within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

2. The petitioner is a practising Advocate before this Court having 39 years of standing and is actively involved in Human Rights Organization and its activities. Admittedly one M/s Rare SS Properties India Private Limited has constructed a commercial building in Uthangudi Village within the limits of Madurai Corporation and the said building started its commercial activities in the name and style of “Super Saravana Stores” from 05.12.2022. It is not in dispute that it is constructed with 10 floors. According to the petitioner, he has sent representations to the respondents on 12.12.2022 through e-mail complaining the public nuisances and the same was followed by sending representations through post on 17.12.2022. As there was no action, according to the petitioner, he was constrained to file the above writ petition.

3. The first respondent/District Magistrate, in his status report has admitted the receipt of the petitioner''s representation dated 17.12.2022, vide speed post on 19.12.2022. It is evident from the records that the petitioner sent a petition under Section 133 Cr.P.C., to the District Magistrate – first respondent complaining about the public nuisances and seeking immediate and urgent steps for removal of the same and due to inaction, as alleged by the petitioner, he has come forward with the present Writ Petition seeking direction to the respondents 1 to 8 to ensure the immediate removal of the public nuisances complained of.

4. The learned Counsel for the ninth respondent, at the first instance, has disputed the very locus standi of the petitioner to file the above Writ Petition and also the very maintainability of the same. Further questions the very listing of the above matter before this Bench. The learned Counsel would contend that the petitioner can maintain any litigation only if he is personally aggrieved by any omission or commission by any of the respondents, and when there is no personal infringement of any right, the question of filing a writ petition does not arise and that the averments in the petitioner''s affidavit would go to show that the petitioner had only canvassed a Public Interest Litigation and as such, the same can be placed before a Division Bench of this Court and not before this Bench.

5. According to the petitioner, he is living in Lake area, Uthangudi, Melur Road, admittedly situated behind the ninth respondent''s buildings. In paragraph No.4 of the affidavit, the petitioner has specifically averred that Lake Area where he has been residing, has access at one point alone ie., the road from the Melur Road leading to Lake Area and TTC Nagar and that the above petition has been filed as he has been suffering personally along with all other residents in his area from the very recent gross public nuisances complained of.

6. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the said Lake Area houses consist large sections of people which includes very reputed businessmen, law