Revisional authorities must decide stay applications within three weeks to prevent lock and seal actions by local bodies, as established under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

Zone - XIII, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.115, Dr.Muthulakshmi Salai, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to pass orders on the stay application filed in appeal under section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning act 1971, dated 20.03.2026 against the order dated 11.03.2026 issued by the 4th respondent for lock and seal of the residential building situate at plot No. 100 and 100A bearing Door No. 37, Anjugammal Street, Thanthai Periyar Nagar, Taramani, Chennai - 600113, within a stipulated time.

For Petitioners : Mr. C.Prabakaran For Respondents : Mr. M.Habeeb Rahman Government Advocate For the first respondent Ms.K.Indumathy Venkatesh For the second respondent Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu Standing Counsel For respondents 3 to 5 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to pass orders on the stay application filed in appeal, under section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971, against the lock and seal order passed by the fourth respondent.

2. This Court, vide order dated 18.08.2025 in WP No.31046 of

2025 (D.Ezhil Maran vs. The Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dept) had dealt with similar prayer and disposed of the said writ petition with the following observations and directions:

“3. This Court is flooded with similar cases where revision petitions are being filed along with stay applications and due to delay in considering the prayer for stay, proceedings are being drawn for lock and seal of the premises.

4. Where a revision petition is filed along with an application for stay, the revisional authority must decide the application for stay within a period of three weeks from the date of filing of the stay application. Further, we are of the view that, at least for three weeks, till the stay application is decided one way or the other, coercive steps should not be adopted by the local body even without waiting for a decision on the stay application.

5. We direct the revisional authority to decide the application for stay within a period of three weeks from today. The petitioner shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed by the revisional authority for consideration of the stay application. A copy of this order shall be placed by the petitioner before the revisional authority within five days. Coercive action shall not be taken for a period of three weeks by the Corporation. If the order passed by us today is not placed before the revisional authority within a period of five days from today, the protective umbrella given shall lose its efficacy.”

3. This writ petition stands disposed of on similar lines.

4. We direct the revisional authority to decide the application for stay within a period of three weeks from today. The petitioners shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed by the revisional authority for consideration of the stay application. A copy of this order shall be placed by the petitioners before the revisional authority within five days. Coercive action shall not be taken for a period of three weeks by the Corporation. If the order passed by us today is not placed before the revisional authority within a period of five days from today, the protective umbrella given shall lose its efficacy.

5. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, WMP No.13018 of 2026 is closed. WMP No.13017 of 2026 filed to allow the petitioners to file a single writ petition is allowed and disposed of.