M.Subramanian vs The Commissioner Coimbatore Corporation

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 19859

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ, G.ARUL MURUGAN, J
M.Subramanian – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner Coimbatore Corporation – Respondent
W.P.No.9311 of 2026 | W.M.P.No.10031 of 2026

Important Points

Court dismisses writ petition due to existing civil suit regarding unauthorized construction, emphasizing the importance of not duplicating legal proceedings.

Subject

Administrative Law - Writ Jurisdiction

Act Referred

Constitution of India: Article 226

Headnote

The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a Mandamus for action on a representation regarding alleged unauthorized construction adjacent to the petitioner's property. The court noted an ongoing civil suit between the petitioner and the third respondent and found no merit in entertaining the writ petition, leading to its dismissal. The court emphasized the lack of merit in the case and ordered no costs.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Shanmugham
For the Respondents: Mr.N.Umapathi

Table of Content
1. writ petition filed under article 226 for action. (Para 1)
2. allegations of unauthorized construction and ongoing civil suit. (Para 2 , 3)

The present writ petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to the 1^st respondent to consider and take necessary action on the petitioner’s representation dated 04.8.2025.

2. The allegation of petitioner is that third respondent has put up unauthorised construction adjacent to his property, that too, without any building plan and planning permit issued by the competent authority.

3. As per the documents filed by petitioner, a civil suit in O.S.No.2288 of 2012, seeking declaration and manadatory injunction, is pending between petitioner and third respondent. 4. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to entertain this parallel proceedings. Accordingly, we find no merit in the case and it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, the interim application is also dismissed.