##PAGE1##

WP No. 452 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29-01-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

W.P No. 452 of 2026 and

WMP.No.553 of 2026

S.Rajini

..Petitioner

Vs

1.The District Collector,

Erode District,

Erode-638011.

2.The Deputy Director,

Town and Country Planning Department,

Back side of Uzhavar Santhai,

Sambath Nagar,

Erode-638001.

3.The Assistant Director (Town Panchayat)

Collector Office Building,

Erode-638001.

4.The Executive Officer,

Kodumudi Town Panchayat,

Kodumudi -638151.

..Respondents

This Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of 4th Respondent in

SWP/BPA/452907/2025/TCP, dated 26.07.2025 and the same and consequently

direct the 4th Respondent to grant building permit to the petitioner as per the

technical clearance issued by the 2nd Respondent as per online application

No.SWP/BPA/452907/2025.

__________

Page1 of 11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/02/2026 12:52:19 pm )

WP No. 452 of 2026

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Palanikumar

For Respondents:

Mr.Shajahan (R4)

Special Government Pleader

Dr.T.Seenivasan (R3)

Special Government Pleader

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the 4th

Respondent in SWP/BPA/452907/2025/TCP, dated 26.07.2025, and

consequently direct the 4th Respondent to grant building permit to the petitioner

as per the technical clearance issued by the 2nd Respondent as per online

application No.SWP/BPA/452907/2025.

2. The petitioner is the owner of the property situated in new Survey

No.355/6, (Natham), Ward No.13, Kodumudi Village, Erode District. There

was in existence an old superstructure over the same. The petitioner proposed to

demolish the said superstructure and construct a new private office building

therein. To that end, he applied to the 2nd respondent for approval. The

petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.3,73,488/-. The petitioner also

remitted the said amount.

__________

Page2 of 11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/02/2026 12:52:19 pm )

WP No. 452 of 2026

3. After the application and fees had been properly applied, the 2nd

respondent took up the application for scrutiny. He granted technical approval

on 11.04.2025, directing the petitioner to approach the 4th respondent for

issuance of building permit, after forwarding his approval.

4. The petitioner states that the 4th respondent was sitting tight on the

approval granted on 11.04.2025, without progressing further. The petitioner

made repeated demands on the 4th respondent to process the application and

issue the consequential orders. Despite such requests, the papers continued to

languish on the file of the fourth respondent.

5. Three months later, on 26.07.2025, the 4^th respondent passed an order

stating that the relevant documents for the building permit had not been filed,

and hence, it was being returned to enable the petitioner to file the relevant

documents. Challenging the same, the present writ petition.

6. When the matter came up for admission, Mr. Palani Kumar appearing

for the petitioner pointed out that the order is as bald as it can be, because the

nature of documents that the 4th respondent requires is not specified. It has

been left to the imagination of the petitioner and the 4^th respondent as regards

the ‘scope and content’ of the documents. Mr. Shah Jahan took notice on behalf

of the respondents 1 to 4. He had been instructed by the 4^th respondent to state

__________

Page3 of 11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/02/2026 12:52:19 pm )

WP No. 452 of 2026

that the petitioner, after getting approval for a private office building is

planning to construct a hospital. Mr. Shah Jahan stated that permission has not

been granted by the second respondent for a hospital, but since the petitioner is

proposing to use the building as one, the 4^th respondent had passed the

impugned order.

7.At the time of granting of the building permit, it is not for the planning

authority to dicta