Administrative actions must comply with procedural due process ensuring all parties are notified before decisions are made.

COMMON ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

Mr.D.Selvanayagam, learned counsel, who appears for the petitioners and Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2 and Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Additional Advocate General, who appears on behalf of Mr.K.Balasubramani, learned Standing Counsel for R3 & R4 state in unison that the order passed in WP(MD)No.30725 of 2025 dated 30.10.2025 may be passed in the present case. That order reads as follows:-

'This is a batch of writ petitions. We have heard Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Senior Counsel, who appears on behalf of M/s.Ajmal Associates for the petitioners, Mr.J.Ashok, and Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned Additional Government Pleader for R1 and Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Additional Advocate General, who appears on behalf of Mr.K.Balasubramani, learned Standing Counsel for R2.

2. In the light of the order proposed to be passed in these matters, no notice is necessary to R3, M/s. Karur District Vengamedu, Kongu Nagar, Residents Welfare Associations ('Association') and also the private respondents, at this stage.

3. The prayer is for a certiorari, challenging an order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Karur District.

4. The matter has a chequered history. The Association had filed a writ petition in WP(MD)No.2895 of 2011, wherein the prayer was for a mandamus, directing the official respondents to remove the unauthorized developments found in areas reserved for public purpose in SF Nos. 135,136,137,138,140,141,146,151,152,153,154,155&160 in Vengamedu Region, Inam Karur Town, Karur District ('properties'/'properties in question').

5. The learned counsel would accede to the position that there is an identity between the properties being the subject matter of the earlier writ petition and the present batch of writ petitions.

6. An order was passed in that writ petition on 04.04.2016, wherein after recording rival contentions, the learned Judge rendered two categoric findings at para 10, which reads as follows:-

'(a) that plots in the land earmarked for public purposes have been and are being sold indiscriminately on the specious plea that the layout is unapproved and

(b) every one of the respondents in now washing away their hands prompting the purchasers as well as people, who put up constructions, to seek regularization.'

7. In summary, the findings rendered at para 22 of the order dated 04.04.2016 are extracted below:-

'22. Therefore, in fine, we are of the considered view

(i) that a layout plan was approved way back in 1983

(ii) that there has been an attempt on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 to suppress the factum approval of layout and to mislead this Court as though there was only a technical approval

(iii) that even admittedly, the plots forming part of all the lands earmarked for public purposes have been sold, construction permitted and electricity connection given 

(iv) that in order to overreach the orders of this Court passed in two earlier writ petitions and in order to overcome to present writ petition, the Municipal Council had passed two resolutions during the pendency of this writ petition seeking to regularize the unauthorized construction and 

(v) that based upon those resolutions, the Municipal Chairman and the elected councilors have purchased plots in the names of their relatives, during the pendency of the writ petition.'

8. That writ petition was disposed on 04.04.2016, with the following directions:-

'27. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) A Committee comprising of a Joint Director of Town and Country Planning. nominated by the first respondent