Legal procedures must be followed prior to administrative actions, ensuring fairness and compliance with statutory requirements.

(made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.)

The captioned Writ Petition has been filed challenging the notice dated

28.03.2025 issued by the third respondent, calling upon the petitioners to remove the alleged encroachment on the public road, namely the 30-feet road situated in Sakthi Nagar Extension in Survey No. 242/2/1A, measuring

135.5 feet.

2. The petitioners’ primary contention is that although a survey was conducted pursuant to the order passed by this Court, no notice was issued to the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the third respondent is not legally sustainable.

3. Issue notice to the official respondents (respondents 1 to 3).

4. Ms. S. Vanitha Joice Rani, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2; and Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the third respondent. 5. The learned State counsel for the third respondent, on receiving instructions, submitted that a fresh survey was conducted on 04.07.2025 in the presence of the petitioners, subsequent to the issuance of the impugned notice. This submission is recorded.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the Chennai Corporation (respondents 1 and 2), on instructions, submitted that the Corporation will initiate action afresh in accordance with the provisions of Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 (for short, “the TNULB Act”). This submission is also recorded.

7. It is pertinent to point out that the second petitioner (S. Bharathi)

had earlier approached this Court (Single Bench) in W.P. No. 22561 of 2023, seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the official respondents from demolishing her premises. This Court, vide order dated 01.08.2023, based on the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Chennai Corporation, directed the Corporation to survey the property after issuing notice to the petitioners as well as to the fourth respondent. However, the survey was conducted without issuing notice to the petitioners thereby vitiating the impugned notice .

8. Since this Court is inclined to direct the Chennai Corporation to initiate proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the TNULB Act, we deem it appropriate to dispense with notice to the fourth respondent, as his rights and contentions are preserved in the proceedings to be initiated by the Chennai Corporation.

9. In light of the foregoing discussion, the impugned notice dated

28.03.2025 issued by the third respondent is set aside, and the Chennai Corporation is directed to commence proceedings afresh in accordance with Section 128 of the TNULB Act, within a period of four weeks from today, i.e., on or before 06.08.2025. It is made clear that it is open to the petitioners to file objections, if any, in relation to the survey conducted on 04.07.2025. It is further clarified that all rights and contentions of both the petitioners and the fourth respondent are preserved in the proceedings to be initiated as directed above. The 4th Respondent is preserved with the right to make representation to the Chennai Corporation to the notice to be issued under Section 128 (1) of TNULB Act.

10. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.