Authorities must consider representations before taking coercive actions; failure to do so denies fair procedure.

COMMON ORDER

(made by M. SUNDAR, J.)

Mr. G. Anbu Chezhian, learned counsel representing Mr. Josephraj, learned counsel on record for all four writ petitioners, is before us.

2. Factual matrix in the captioned four matters is common. Facts in a nutshell are that the writ petitioners were visited with notices dated 08.01.2025 under 'the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 (Tamil Nadu Act 9 of 1999)' [hereinafter 'the TNULB Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] besides notices dated 20.03.2025 and 23.04.2025 under ‘the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007 (Tamil Nadu Act 8 of 2007)’ [hereinafter ‘Tanks Act’ for the sake of brevity] and ' Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Rules, 2007 ' [hereinafter 'Tanks Rules' for the sake of brevity]; that assailing these notices, four writ petitioners before us in the captioned matters, came to this Court earlier by way of four writ petitions, viz., W.P. Nos.21384, 21392, 21395 and 21400 of 2025 and these four writ petitions came to be disposed of by this very Division Bench in and by a common order dated

17.06.2025 and the operative portion of this common order is as follows:

'14. The following order is made:

i. Since, concededly, the proviso to Section 128 (1)(b) of the TNULB Act, has not been complied with, the two impugned notices dated 08.01.2025 are now directed to be treated as show cause notices (SCNs) served on the writ petitioners today (17.06.2025);

ii. Noticee/writ petitioners (if so advised and if so desired) shall send representations within 15 days from today, i.e., on or before 02.07.2025;

iii. As regards notices dated 20.03.2025 and 23.04.2025 issued in Form III of the Tanks Rules, the same also shall be treated as SCNs vide T.K. Shanmugam principle and the writ petitioners will have 15 days time to respond to the same. In other words, the writ petitioners shall send their response on or before 02.07.2025, if so advised and so desired;

iv. If the writ petitioners/noticees do not send representations within aforereferred timeline, it is open to the respondents/appropriate authority to proceed (post 02.07.2025) qua removal of immovable structures which are subject matter of impugned notices;

v. If the writ petitioners/noticees send representations within aforereferred timeline, the same shall be considered and final orders shall be made by R1 (Executive Officer) as per proviso to Section 128 (1)(b) of the TNULB Act/appropriate authority vide T.K. Shanmugam principle, as the case may be;

vi. The final orders so passed shall be served on the writ petitioners/noticees within five working days from the date of the final orders;

vii. If the final orders so passed by R1/appropriate authority end up in favour of the writ petitioners, that would be curtains on the matter;

viii.If it happens to the contrary, in other words, if the final orders so passed by R1/appropriate authority, are going to be adverse to the writ petitioners, the same shall be kept in abeyance for a fortnight from the date of service of the final orders on the writ petitioners so as to provide a window to the writ petitioners to assail the said orders if permissible in law or to seek judicial review of the said order;

ix. If the writ petitioners do not take recourse to either of the aforesaid two options within a fortnight from the date of service of the final orders, the final orders so passed by R1/appropriate authority, will be resuscitated and put into motion; and x. Though obvious, we make it clear that any coercive action will be subject to / depending on final orders to be made by R1 vide proviso to Section 128 (1)(b) of the TNULB Act/appropriate authority vide T.K.Shanmugam principle. We also make it clear