SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 5226

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. M. Subramaniam, C. Kumarappan, JJ
P.Aadhilakshmi – Appellant
Versus
District collector – Respondent
WP No. 3133 of 2026 | WMP.No.3519 of 2026



Important Points

A writ petition is not maintainable against the issuance of a notice unless the notice was issued by an incompetent authority.

Subject

Civil - Writ Jurisdiction

Act Referred

Headnote

The petitioner challenged a notice issued under Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, directing the vacation of premises. The court found that the notice was issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer and observed that a writ is generally not maintainable against the mere issuance of a notice unless the authority is incompetent. The court framed the issue around the maintainability of the writ petition against the notice. It reasoned that since the petitioner did not challenge the competence of the authority, the appropriate remedy was to submit a reply to the authority concerned. This Writ Petition stands dismissed with the above observations.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. Seshachari
For the Respondents: T. Arun Kumar

For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Seshachari

For Respondent(s): Mr.T.Arun Kumar Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by C.Kumarappan J.)

The present Writ Petition has been filed assailing the order of the Assistant Executive Engineer dated 07.01.2026. On perusal of such notice, it is seen that the notice was issued under Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. It is settled principle of law that no writ is maintainable against the issuance of notice unless such issuance of notice is by an incompetent authority.

In this case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the notice was issued by an incompetent authority. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to give liberty to the petitioner to reply to the authority concerned. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner has already given explanation on 10.01.2026.

In view of the above fact, the Authorities are directed to consider the above reply and thereafter, take a decision in accordance with law. If any encroachments are identified then, all encroachments on Highway properties are to be removed and enforcement actions to be continued.

This Writ Petition stands dismissed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top