Writ petitions disposed as Ombudsman's directions acted upon; further action awaits statutory appeal outcome.

Heard the petitioner/party-in-person in W.P.No.33219 of 2024 and Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.33301 of 2025.

2.W.P.No.33219 of 2024 is filed seeking to implement the order of the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Ombudsman dated 10.05.2023 and W.P.No.33301 of 2025 is filed assailing the order of the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Ombudsman dated 10.05.2023.

3.The petitioner-in-person had approached the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Ombudsman complaining certain unauthorised constructions put up by the Church and also complaining inaction on the part of the authorities and to take action. By order dated 10.05.2023, the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Ombudsman disposed of the complaint by issuing certain directions.

4.It is the grievance of the petitioner-in-person that the directions issued by the Ombudsman had not been given effect to and therefore, seeks implementation of the order. The petitioner in the other writ petition complains that the directions have been issued by the Ombudsman without making them as a party and affording an opportunity, which is not sustainable and therefore, seeks to quash the same.

5.At the outset, it is to be noted that the petitioner-in-person had already filed W.P.No.3782 of 2026 seeking to direct the official respondent to carry out necessary enforcement action against the respondents No.11 and 12. This Court, by order dated 12.03.2026, dismissed the writ petition by recording the pendency of the present writ petition and also the action already taken and the statutory appeal that is pending before the Government. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows :

“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 sub judice 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 regularisation 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 pro