The court addressed the interrelation of concurrent statutory appeals and pending matters in determining the maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226.

Heard the petitioner / Party-in-Person.

2. The writ petition seeks for a direction to the official respondents to carry out necessary enforcement actions in respect of the unlawful structures put up by the private respondents 8 and 9.

3. At the outset, it is to be noted that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.33219 of 2024 in respect of the same complaint. Status report was filed and certain unauthorized constructions were noticed. Submissions were made by the private respondents that in respect of the construction of the Church made more than 50 years ago, they have applied for regularization. It was stated by the Corporation that the regularisation application will be examined as per the provisions of applicable laws. By recording the submissions, by order dated

11.09.2025, the writ petition was adjourned and it is still pending. 4. Subsequently, the 9^th respondent also preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.44830 of 2025 for a direction to CMDA to consider their representation for regularisation. However, since the regularisation application already came to be rejected on 05.11.2025, this Court, by order dated 21.11.2025, dismissed the writ petition as having rendered infructuous.

5. The 9^th respondent again challenged the order dated

05.11.2025 rejecting the regularisation application in W.P.No.46953 of 2025. This Court on finding that, there is a statutory remedy of appeal available to the Government under Section 113(A)(6) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, by order dated 03.12.2025, disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the 9^th respondent herein to prefer statutory appeal before the Government.

6. At this juncture, now again the petitioner has come with the present writ petition seeking for a direction to carry out enforcement action in respect of the very same property (Church) put up by the 9^th respondent, which is subjudice in the statutory appeal before the Government.

7. It is not a case where the complaint of the petitioner has not been acted upon, nor there is no follow-up action. As referred above, the authorities have proceeded with the enforcement action and even the regularisiation application had been rejected, which issue is now pending in statutory appeal before the Government. Until the appeal is decided one way or the other, no further action could be proceeded with. Under such circumstances, we see no reason for the petitioner to rush to this Court with the instant writ petition.

8. In view of the above, this writ petition cannot be entertained at this stage and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim application stands closed.