Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43253

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. R. Swaminathan, V. Lakshminarayanan, JJ
Mohammed Lukhaman Kadengal – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation – Respondent
WP No. 20251 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mahiben Samuel
For the Respondents: Abishek Murthy

The court exercises jurisdiction under Article 226 to ensure municipal authorities maintain public footpaths and road margins free from unauthorized encroachments, thereby safeguarding public access and preventing the obstruction of commercial premises.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged the existence of unauthorized encroachments on footpaths and road margins which obstructed the frontage of their business premises in violation of public access rights. Relying on Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for the removal of these obstructions. The court examined the grievance concerning public space encroachment and access rights. The core issue addressed was whether the municipal body had failed to maintain the public path free from unauthorized obstructions. The court, noting the subsequent action taken by the local municipal authority, found that the specific grievance regarding the physical obstruction had been addressed by the removal of the stalls. The writ petition was disposed of with a directive to the municipal authorities to prevent the recurrence of such encroachments, ensuring that the footpaths remain clear for public use.

Table of Content
1. initial procedural acknowledgement of the parties. (Para 1)
2. the right to access premises without obstruction from illegal encroachments. (Para 2)
3. judicial disposal upon compliance and continuing mandate for public space maintenance. (Para 3)

(Order of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

Heard both sides.

2. The writ petitioner is carrying on his business at Patullos Road, Chennai.

He is aggrieved by the unauthorized encroachments and obstruction of footpath and frontage of his premises preventing his access. Seeking removal of the same, he has moved the present writ petition.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation submitted that all the encroachments have been cleared this morning. Photograph has also been produced, which is scanned and appended below.

3. Recording the same, this writ petition is disposed of. We direct the respondents to ensure that this condition prevails for all times to come. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43253

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASG. R. Swaminathan, V. Lakshminarayanan, JJMohammed Lukhaman Kadengal – AppellantVersusCommissioner Greater Chennai Corporation – RespondentWP No. 20251 of 2026

The court exercises jurisdiction under Article 226 to ensure municipal authorities maintain public footpaths and road margins free from unauthorized encroachments, thereby safeguarding public access and preventing the obstruction of commercial premises.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. R. Swaminathan, V. Lakshminarayanan, JJ
Mohammed Lukhaman Kadengal – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation – Respondent
WP No. 20251 of 2026