An administrative notice that precludes an opportunity for defense contravenes principles of natural justice and cannot sustain legal scrutiny.

ORDER :

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, C.J.

With consent of the parties, this writ petition is heard finally.

2. Challenge is to the notice dated 15.09.2025 on the sole ground that despite the order of this Court passed earlier on 19.11.2024 in W.P.No.33832 of 2024 [ G.Babu v. The District Collector, Chennai and others ], straightaway a removal order has been slapped on the face of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of this Court required the respondent authorities to show cause by supplying a copy of the inspection report, so that the petitioner could defend and satisfy the authority that it is not a case of encroachment.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation would submit that the notice issued on 15.09.2025 is in the nature of show cause and it is not in the nature of a final order.

5. The contents of the impugned notice read as below :

“A case has been filed in the Madras High Court by Mr.G.Babu (Case No.W.P.NO.33832/2024 W.M.P.NO.5497/2025) alleging that the land where the temple was built in Ward-34, Zone-4, Area-9, Ward-34, Chennai Metropolitan Corporation, encroaching on the road and encroaching on the road, i.e., the Madras High Court, which heard the case, has issued an order on 18.03.2025 to the Revenue Commissioner to conduct a field inspection and remove the encroachment in question and take further action.

Therefore, in this regard, the Revenue Commissioner conducted a field survey and found that the place where the temple is built is a road belonging to the Greater Chennai Corporation, and he has written to the Greater Chennai Corporation on 11/06/2025 to immediately remove the temple encroaching on the road and submit a report. According to the Revenue Commissioner's report, the temple built encroaching on the above road is intended to be removed under Section -128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998.

Therefore, you should remove the aforesaid encroachment within 7 days (seven days) from the date of issue of this notice. Failure to do so will result in the Greater Chennai Corporation taking action to remove the said temple encroachment without any notice under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998. You are also informed that you will be responsible for all the costs and consequences of removing the temple encroachment.”

After going through the contents of the impugned notice, read as it is, it appears to be a premeditated decision.

6. It has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court and this Court, time and again, that if the notice itself shows that the authority pre- judged the issue, a cause of action will arise to challenge the notice itself. There is nothing in the notice which requires the petitioner to show cause against the action of removal. The notice directs the petitioner to remove the encroachment in seven days from the date of issuance of the notice. It further states that, in case of failure, the Corporation will take action to remove the encroachment without any notice under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 and the petitioner would be responsible for all costs and consequences of removing the encroachment.

If that be the text and tenor of the notice, it is clear that the authorities have pre-judged the issue and have already taken a decision requiring the petitioner to remove the so-called encroachment in seven days.

The submission of learned counsel for the Corporation that it should be treated as show cause notice cannot be accepted. It appears that when the action was called in question in