Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, C.KUMARAPPAN, JJ
M.Pandian – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Trichirappalli City Municipal Corporation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the procedural history of the petitioners' challenge. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. insufficient time granted in the notice. (Para 4) |
| 3. court mandates compliance with statutory timeframes. (Para 5) |
| 4. final ruling and costs imposed. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
The petitioners had earlier instituted W.P.(MD)No.29726 of
2025 challenging the notice dated nil. A further direction was sought to grant planning permission to the petitioners' property at Trichy District, Trichy Registration District, Trichy Joint No.3, Sub-Registrar Office range, Municipal Town old 5th ward, Trichy Fort, Vanapattarai street on eastern side, old 4th block, old T.S.No.95.
2. The main contention of the petitioners was that the lock and seal notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Zone-1, Trichirappalli City Municipal Corporation under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (Act), was not even dated. Hence, the writ petition was disposed directing the respondents to issue notice afresh.
3. They obliged by issuing the notice impugned in this writ petition, which is dated 24.10.2025, however granting time only till
03.11.2025.
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
