The court held that procedural fairness requires that all representations must be duly considered before enforcing removal orders under the TNULB Act.

ORDER :

M.SUNDAR, J.

Subject matter of captioned main 'Writ Petition' ['WP' for the sake of brevity] is property situate in S.No.1008/1A part and 1007/part in Madurantakam Town and Taluk, Chengalpttu District, now in Town Survey No.37, Block 40,Ward-A and can otherwise be described as Door No.23/1, Old Taluk Office Road, Madurantakam Town & Taluk, Chengalpattu District' [hereinafter 'said property' for the sake of brevity].

2. A 'communication dated 06.03.2025 bearing reference from the sole respondent inter alia calling upon the writ petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment i.e., said property' [hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience] has been called in question.

3. Mr.G.Mageshkumar, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner submits that the respondent earlier issued notice dated 10.10.2024 purportedly under Section 128 of 'the TAMIL NADU URBAN LOCAL BODIES ACT , 1998 (Tamil Nadu Act 9 of 1999)' {hereinafter 'TNULB Act' for the sake of brevity}, writ petitioner came to this Court by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.34445 of 2024 inter alia on the ground that the writ petitioner has not been show-caused and this Court disposed of the writ petition in and by an order dated 26.11.2024 directing the '10.10.2024 notice' to be treated as 'show-cause notice' ['SCN' for the sake of brevity], permitting the writ petitioner to send a reply / representation on or before 03.12.2024 and further making it clear that if writ petitioner sends a reply/representation, on or before 03.12.2024, the same shall be considered and orders have to be passed as per proviso to Section 128 (1)(b) of TNULB Act, writ petitioner sent a representation dated 02.12.2024 but impugned order has been made without considering the same.

4. Issue notice to sole respondent.

5. Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Standing counsel accepts notice for sole respondent and very fairly submits that the impugned order has been made by sole respondent without considering the writ petitioner's representation dated 02.12.2024 therefore the impugned order may be permitted to be rolled back and the respondent may please be permitted to consider the representation and pass orders afresh inter alia under proviso to Section 128 (1)(b) of TNULB Act. This makes the legal drill at hand fairly simple and therefore, the main writ petition is taken up with the consent of learned counsel on both sides in the Admission Board itself.

6. Before we proceed further it is necessary to give a chronology for ease of reference:

7. Before proceeding further this Court deems it appropriate to set out Section 128 of TNULB Act as obtaining today;

'128. Power to remove encroachment from public place. - (1) The Commissioner may, -

(a) remove without any notice a