IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24.11.2025

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

W.P.No.41892 of 2025

Moorthy .. Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Commissioner

Greater Chennai Corporation

Chennai – 600 003.

2. The Assistant Executive Engineer

Unit – 39, Zone – 13

Greater Chennai Corporation No.65, Velacherry Main Road

Velacherry, Chennai – 600 042.

3. The Zonal Officer

Zone – 13, Greater Chennai Corporation

No.115, Doctor Muthulakshmi Street

Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.

4. The Managing Director

Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board

No.5, Kamaraj Salai Chennai – 600 009.

5. Udhayakumar .. Respondents

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari, calling for the entire records of the impugned notice issued by the first respondent in Z.O.XIII/Enc./Dn.177/001/2025 dated 12.02.2025 and quash the

same.

For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Chellamuthu For the Respondents : Ms.P.T.Ramadevi Standing Counsel for R1 to R3 Ms.Indumathi Venkatesan for R4 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

Prayer sought herein is for a writ of certiorari, to call for the entire records of the impugned notice issued by the first respondent in Z.O.XIII/Enc./Dn.177/001/2025 dated 12.02.2025 and quash the same.

2. In respect of the property at Plot No.339, Door No.116A, Throwpathy Amman Koil Street, Lakshmipuram, Velachery, Chennai – 600 042, Division – 177, Unit – 39, Zone – 13, the Chennai Corporation has been disputing to state that the petitioner and his wife namely, Gomathy, who is the owner of the tenement of the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, have occupied a public pathway or road belonging to the respondent Corporation.

3. In this context, one Udhayakumar had already filed a writ petition, where, some orders have been passed, pursuant to which, it is the stand of the respondent Corporation that, inspection had been made and survey had been conducted, where, they found that both the said Udhayakumar as well as the present petitioner Moorthy and his wife have encroached upon the public pathway/street, therefore, notices had to be given against them to remove such encroachments.

4. However, without giving a show-cause notice as contemplated under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, Hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1998”., straight away, orders of eviction has been passed on 12.02.2025, as against which, a reply, in detail, has been given by the present petitioner on 17.02.2025. Without considering the same, again, the same proceedings have been issued on 16.09.2025 for removal of such encroachment. Therefore, at this juncture, questioning the order dated 12.02.2025, the present writ petition has been filed.

5.1. Heard Mr.R.Chellamuthu, learned counsel for the petitioner, who would submit that, if at all any alleged encroachment has been made on the part of the petitioner and to remove such alleged encroachment, if they want to invoke Section 128 of the Act of 1998, proper show-cause notice ought to have been given, which they have not given. Straightaway, since the order dated 12.02.2025 has been passed invoking Section 128 of the Act of 1998, that was the main ground the present writ petition has been filed to challenge the said order.

5.2. It is his further contention that, treating the said order dated 12.02.2025 as show-cause notice, already, a reply has been given in detail on the part of the petitioner as well as his wife Gomathy, who is the original allottee of the tenement dated 17.02.2025. Even that reply has not been considered by the respondent Corporation and in the month of September, 2025, again a notice to evict the petitioner has been issued and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed, he contended.

6. On the other hand, Ms.P.T.Ramadevi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, on instructions, would submit that, the removal of encroachment drive has been undertaken by