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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 48036

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.Velmurugan, J
A.Mohanraj – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Police, Avadi Commissionarate – Respondent
W.P.No. 18327 of 2025 | W.M.P.No.20532 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.G.Viswanathan
For the Respondents:Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

The authority for eviction must comply with due process, and notices issued without proper authority are invalid.

Headnote:The judgment assesses the validity of an impugned notice issued to a physically challenged individual running a shop, determining it was without proper authority. The court finds that the notice does not follow due process and quashes it, although permitting future actions by the relevant municipal authority. The issues addressed involved the jurisdiction of the police in eviction cases. The court concluded the notice was quashed but allowed the municipal authority to act if necessary.

Result: 'There shall be no order as to costs.'

Table of Content
1. compliance with due process is essential for eviction (Para 3)
2. police authority must act on lawful orders (Para 4)
3. jurisdiction and authority determine the validity of eviction notices (Para 5)

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Notice dated 24.04.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner and quash the same.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is a physically challenged person having permanent disability and he is running a bunk shop at Door No.8, CTH Road, Ambattur Estate, Chennai, for his livelihood. The second respondent-Police, without any basis, issued a notice dated 24.04.2025 to the petitioner to evict his shop. It is further submitted that the Township Vending Committee constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu alone is the competent authority to decide as to whether the road side vending can be permitted or not in a particular place. However, the second respondent-Police is acting at the behest of M/s.NTIT Data Centre, without following any due process of law and issued the said notice. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file the present petition.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents-Police, on instructions, submitted that the Greater Chennai Corporation has taken steps to remove the encroachments in accordance with law and that they sought Police protection. Therefore, the respondents-Police, in order to execute the order of the Corporation, had extended their service and issued impugned notice to the petitioner to vacate his shop.

5. On a perusal of the impugned notice dated 24.04.2025, it is seen that there is a whisper about the reference regarding the local body issued to the petitioner and the second respondent had issued the impugned notice without any authority. Therefore, the impugned notice dated 24.04.2024 is hereby quashed. However, the Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation is hereby directed to take action against the petitioner, if at all the petitioner is an unauthorised encroacher, in the manner known to law.

6. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

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