Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Sundar, Hemant Chandangoundar, JJ
A. Andrew Carol – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner Coimbatore Corporation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging the validity of the notice based on procedural irregularity. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. discussion of statutory requirements for issuing notices under the act. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. final decision to quash the notice based on irregularities. (Para 11) |
(made by M. SUNDAR, J.)
Captioned main ‘writ petition’ [hereinafter ‘WP’ for the sake of brevity]
has been filed praying for issue of a writ of certiorari qua a ‘notice dated
16.06.2025 bearing reference No.7905/2024/H1/S issued by R2 (Town Planner, Coimbatore Corporation)’ [hereinafter ‘impugned notice’ for the sake of convenience and clarity].
2. Mr. A.E. Ravichandran, learned counsel for writ petitioner, adverting to the impugned notice, submits that impugned notice is addressed to one Pushpalatha; that Pushpalatha is writ petitioner’s spouse; that impugned notice does not call upon noticee to show cause and therefore, it is not a show cause notice (SCN), much less a show cause notice within the meaning of Section 128 (1)(b) of 'the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 (Tamil Nadu Act 9 of 1999)' [hereinafter 'TNULB Act' for the sake of brevity], though the impugned notice, in the caption, specifically refers to S
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
