Back
M. SUNDAR, K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
S. Subhashini, W/o. A. Umapathy – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Coimbatore Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore – 641001 – Respondent
ORDER :
(M. Sundar, J.) :
In the captioned 'Writ Petitions' {hereinafter 'WPs' in plural and 'WP' in singular for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity}, 'two notices both bearing reference 
issued in the June of 2024, signed by R1 (the Commissioner, Coimbatore Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore - 641 001) on 24.06.2024' {hereinafter 'impugned notices' for the sake of brevity} have been called in question.
2. Scanned reproduction of two notices are as follows:
Impugned notice in W.P.No.19168 of 2024:
Impugned notice in W.P.No.19174 of 2024:
3. One of the contentions of writ petitioners is that R1 does not have jurisdiction to issue aforementioned notices straightaway.
4. Issue notice.
5. Mr.N.Velmurugan, learned standing counsel accepts notice for all three respondents.
6. We wanted to know from the learned standing counsel the provision of law under which the impugned notices have been issued.
7. Learned standing counsel submitted that the impugned notices have been issued under 'the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998' {hereinafter 'TNULB Act' for the sake of brevity}.
8. Considering the limited legal perimeter within which the captioned WPs should now perambulate, with th
The court ruled that a notice issued under Section 128 of the TNULB Act must allow the petitioner to respond before any coercive action is taken.
The court established that an impugned notice for removal of encroachment must be treated as a show cause notice if a response is provided, ensuring compliance with procedural fairness.
The court established that compliance with procedural requirements, specifically the issuance of a show cause notice, is essential in encroachment proceedings under the TNULB Act.
The court emphasized the necessity of treating notices as show cause notices, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice by allowing petitioners to respond.
A petitioner cannot re-litigate issues previously adjudicated without demonstrating any legal entitlement, especially in matters relating to public land usage.
The court's decision was influenced by the lack of consideration of the petitioners' reply and non-application of mind by the respondents in issuing the notice for removal of encroachment on a waterb....
The court held that procedural fairness requires that all representations must be duly considered before enforcing removal orders under the TNULB Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
