SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 3062

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Sundar, K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, JJ.
S. Abdul Khader - Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Villupuram Municipality - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 17541, 19502, 20066 of 2021, W.M.P. Nos. 18644, 20796, 21318 of 2021
Decided On : 18-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : N. Suresh
For the Respondents: P. Srinivas, D. Ravichander, K. Mohammed Hydher Ali, V. Venkata Seshaiya, S. Sathish

The court emphasized the necessity of treating notices as show cause notices, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice by allowing petitioners to respond.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 - Section 362 - Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 - Section 128 - Writ petitions challenging notices issued for alleged encroachments - Notices treated as show cause notices (SCNs) allowing petitioners to respond - Legal provisions regarding encroachments clarified - Impugned notices saved under the TNULB Act. (Paras 5, 10, 18)

(B) Administrative Law - Principles of natural justice - Petitioners argued they were not given an opportunity to show cause - Court accepted the argument and allowed representation against SCNs. (Paras 6, 18)

Facts of the case:
Three writ petitions were filed against notices issued by the Villupuram Municipality regarding alleged encroachments, dated 03.08.2021. The petitioners contended they were not given a chance to respond before the issuance of these notices.

Findings of Court:
The court accepted the impugned notices as SCNs, allowing the petitioners to respond within a specified timeframe, thus ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were given a fair opportunity to respond to the notices regarding alleged encroachments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity to the petitioners to respond to the SCNs, reinforcing the principles of natural justice in administrative actions.

Result: Writ petitions disposed of, interim orders in connected miscellaneous petitions effaced.

ORDER :

M. SUNDAR, J.

1. This common order will govern the captioned three main 'writ petitions' (hereinafter 'WPs' for the sake of brevity) and the captioned 'writ miscellaneous petitions' (hereinafter 'WMPs' for the sake of brevity) thereat.

2. In the captioned main WPs, three separate notices but all dated 03.08.2021 and all bearing reference (hereinafter 'impugned notices' for the sake of convenience and clarity) have been assailed by the three writ petitioners. A scanned reproduction of one of the impugned notices i.e., impugned notice in W.P.No.17541 of 2021 (S. Abdul Khader-writ petitioner) is as follows:

3. Mr. N. Suresh, learned counsel for writ petitioners in all WPs, Mr. P. Srinivas, learned counsel for RR 1 and 2 (Standing Counsel for Villupuram Municipality in W.P.No.17541 of 201), Mr.D.Ravichander, learned counsel representing Mr. K. Mohammed Hydher Ali, learned Standing Counsel for Villupuram Municipality in W.P. Nos.19502 and 20066 of 2021, Mr.V. Venkata Seshaiya, learned Standing Counsel for R3 (TANGEDCO) in all WPs and Mr.S.Sathish, learned counsel for R4 in all WPs, are before us.

4. This Court heard all the aforesaid counsel.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for Villupuram Municipality, submitted that the impugned notices can be construed to be notices issued under Section 362 of 'the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (Tamil Nadu Act V of 1920)' [hereinafter 'the District Municipalities Act' for the sake of brevity], though the impugned notices only talk about consequences under Section 362, if alleged encroachment is not removed within 15 days.

6. Notwithstanding very many averments in the writ affidavit, learned counsel for writ petitioners predicated his campaign against the impugned notices on one point and that one point is, the writ petitioners have not been show caused.

7. Learned Standing Counsel for Villupuram Municipality submits that the impugned notices can now be treated as 'show cause notices' [hereinafter 'SCNs' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

8. Learned counsel for R4 [private respondent] submits that if the impugned notices are treated as SCNs today, a time frame may please be fixed for the writ petitioners / noticees to respond.

9. This Court has no difficulty in accepting the proposal to consider the impugned notices as SCNs as that would only mean that the writ petitioners are given an opportunity to respond and put forth their say qua alleged encroachments but before we do that and write the operative portion of this order, we deem it appropriate to capture the obtaining legal position for the sake of convenience and clarity qua all concerned.

10. 'The Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 (Act 9 of 1999)' [hereinafter 'the TNULB Act' for the sake of brevity] is a conditional legislation vide sub-section (3) of Section 1 of TNULB Act, which is dated 04.05.1999, but originally kicked in (came into force) on 01.08.2000, suspended immediately thereafter, i.e., on 23.08.2000 and resuscitated on 13.04.2023 vide notification.

11. In and vide Section 200 of the TNULB Act captioned 'Repeal and saving' [to be precise vide Section 200(1)(b)], the District Municipalities Act stood repealed but vide clause (e) of sub-section 3 of Section 200 of the TNULB Act, all things done, made, instituted, executed, appointed, etc. by Municipalities before the commencement of the TNULB Act, i.e., prior to kicking in of the TNULB Act, stand saved and they are to be construed as things done, made, instituted, executed, appointed, etc. under the provisions of the TNULB Act.

12. Section 200(3)(e) of the TNULB Act has been amended vide Act 25 of 2024 which came into force on and from 06.01.2025. The effect of the amendment is, the term 'Municipalities' occurring in Section 200 (3)(e) has been substituted with the expression 'Municipal Councils'. Therefore, Section 200 (3)(e) of the TNULB Act as of today reads as follows:

'Section 200 (3)(e)

200. Repeal and Saving - (1) The following Acts are hereby repealed, na

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top