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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 4001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
G.Krishnaveni – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of corporation – Respondent



##PAGE1##

2026:MHC:352

WP No. 2566 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28.01.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

WP No. 2566 of 2026

G.Krishnaveni

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

The Commissioner of Corporation,

Coimbatore Corporation,

Office of the Commissioner of Corporation,

Coimbatore - Post and District.

..Respondent(s)

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

issuing a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the proceedings made in

S.R.No.58/2025/H1(W) on the file of the respondent dated 23.12.2025 and

quash the same.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Devaraj

For Respondent(s): Mr.D.Ferdinand

Standing Counsel

__________

Page1 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/01/2026 04:41:00 pm )

##PAGE2##

WP No. 2566 of 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

Under assail is the notice issued by Commissioner, Coimbatore

Corporation under Section 128(2) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act,

1998 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that documents have

been already produced before respondents for consideration. Impugned

notice is nothing but an order passed by Commissioner without providing a

reasonable opportunity. Thus, the order is bad in law.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for Coimbatore Corporation would oppose

by stating that procedures as contemplated under Section 128(2) of the Act

has been complied with. Seven days time is granted to the encroachers to

vacate themselves, failing which Corporation will remove the encroachments

and initiate penal action. Thus, writ petition is devoid of merits.

4. Let us now consider the scope of Section 128 of the Act,

128. Power to remove encroachment from

public place.—(1) The Commissioner may,—

(a) remove without any notice any movable

temporary structure, enclosure, stall, booth, any

article whatsoever hawked, exposed or displayed for

sale or any other thing whatsoever by way of

encroaching street or public place or the 1[land

__________

Page2 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/01/2026 04:41:00 pm )

##PAGE3##

WP No. 2566 of 2026

belonging to or vested with the municipality] with the

municipal limit ;”

Sub-section (2) to Section 128 reads as under,

“(2) Whoever makes any encroachment in any

land or space (not being private property) in any

public street or any 1[ land belonging to or vested

with the municipality] within the municipal limit, shall,

on conviction, be punished with imprisonment which

shall not be less than one year but which may extend

to three years and with fine which may extend to fifty

thousand rupees : Provided that the Court may, for

any adequate or special reasons to be mentioned in

the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for

a term of less than one year.”

5. Therefore, Seven days time is to be granted to the encroachers to

remove encroachments by themselves, failing which, competent authorities of

Corporation is empowered to evict the encroachers without any further notice.

This being the scope of the provision, petitioner cannot plead that there must

be a detailed enquiry and an order to be passed. When the legislature thought

fit and enacted a provision for expeditious removal of encroachments in public

interest, the said provision is to be read as it is. There is no scope for the High

Court to expand the scope of the provision or contemplate any additional

procedure by way of interpretation, which would defeat the very purpose and

objective of such stringent provision enacted by the legislature in public

interest.

__________

Page3 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/01/2026 04:41:00 pm )

##PAGE4##

WP No. 2566 of 2026

6. The language employed in the statutes is to be read as it is. Only in

the event of an ambiguity, it may require further interpretation. When Section

128 of the Act is clear in its terms, and seven days time is contemplated

affording opportunity to the encroachers to remove the encroachments by

themselv

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