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) 18029

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Seenivasan K – Appellant
Versus
The Member Secretary – Respondent



##PAGE1##

W.P.(MD) No.35179 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 30.01.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

W.P.(MD)No.35179 of 2025

and

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.27882 & 27883 of 2025

K.Seenivasan ... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Member Secretary,

Dindigul Local Planning Authority,

Dindigul – 624 003.

2.The Commissioner,

Corporation of Dindigul,

Dindigul.

3.K.Kannan ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to

issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the

____________

Page 1 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:31:26 am )

##PAGE2##

W.P.(MD) No.35179 of 2025

second respondent in Na.KA.No.8014/2021/F3 dated 13.11.2025 and in

Na.Ka.No.8014/2021/F3 dated 21.11.2025 and quash the same as illegal

and consequently direct the first respondent to regularize the additional

construction as per the regularization application filed in online application

No.2019030020018142 dated 3.7.2019.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar

Senior Counsel

for Mr.R.R.Kannan

For Respondent No.1 : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran

Additional Government Pleader

For Respondent No.2 : Mr.J.Lawrance

Standing Counsel

For Respondent No.3 : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy

Senior Counsel

for M/s.Roy & Roy Associates

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.]

The subject matter of the Writ Petition is the impugned notice issued

by the Dindigul Municipality on 13.11.2025, directing the writ petitioner to

remove five flats constructed unauthorisedly without proper planning

permission.

____________

Page 2 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:31:26 am )

##PAGE3##

W.P.(MD) No.35179 of 2025

2.The short point involved in this case is that the writ petitioner

claims that he made application for regularisation through online on

03.07.2019 and the same not been so far considered by the first

respondent. Therefore, the impugned order has to be quashed.

3.However, it is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the

third respondent that the impugned order was issued pursuant to the

direction of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.20186 of 2021 dated 25.03.2024 and

after giving due opportunity to the petitioner herein.

4.This Court, to verify whether the applications dated 03.07.2019

alleged to have been submitted by the petitioner herein been considered by

the first respondent and any order passed, called for the records. The

dispatch register produced by the learned Counsel for the first respondent

only indicates that the application for regularisation has been returned

through post on 05.09.2019 but there is no indication or proof to show if

the said communication was received by the writ petitioner. That apart, the

communication of the Joint Director of Town and Country Planning,

Dindigul addressed to the petitioner herein vide Na.Ka.No.1269/2024

dated 20.03.2025, indicates that his representation dated 30.07.2024 was

____________

Page 3 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 11:31:26 am )

##PAGE4##

W.P.(MD) No.35179 of 2025

not considered since his earlier request for regularisation dated

05.09.2019 was returned seeking further clarification and clarification was

not received even after expiry of one year. This communication also

indicates that the non-consideration of the application for regularisation

was informed to one K.Kannan, who is the third respondent.

5.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

even this communication was not received by him though the petitioner's

name is shown as the addressee.

6.In any event, we find that the application of the petitioner herein

for regularisation not been considered on merits so far. In such

circumstances to give an opportunity to the petitioner herein, we direct the

petitioner herein to submit his application for regularisation in person to

the first respondent within a period of two [2] weeks from today. On receipt

of the application for regularisation, same has to

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