Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 47415

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. R. Swaminathan, V. Lakshminarayanan, JJ
N.M. Shadiq Basha – Appellant
Versus
Additional Chief Secretary (Technical) Housing and Urban Development Department – Respondent
WP No. 20846 of 2026 | WMP.Nos.22481 & 22484 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.Siva Subramanian
For the Respondents: M.Sivavarthanan, D.B.R.Prabhu

When a statutory revision petition is pending before an authority, the Court may direct its expeditious disposal and grant interim relief against coercive enforcement actions until the merits of the case are determined by the concerned authority.

Headnote:The present writ petition was filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the authorities to consider a pending revision petition and to restrain coercive action against a building. The petitioners challenged a lock and seal notice issued under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971, while a Special Revision Petition under S. 80(A) of the same Act remained pending before the appellate authority. The Court sought to ensure the orderly resolution of the pending statutory revision. The primary issue before the Court was whether the authority should be directed to expedite the decision on the pending statutory revision and whether protection against coercive action was warranted in the interim. The Court held that the pendency of a statutory revision requires the appropriate authority to adjudicate the matter on merits, and it is a settled practice to provide interim relief to maintain the status quo during the pendency of such proceedings. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the authority to decide the pending revision petition within six months, and an interim order of status quo is granted until such disposal.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts leading to the statutory revision petition. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court directive to dispose of pending revision and maintain status quo. (Para 3)

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

Heard both sides.

2. Questioning the lock and seal notice issued by the 2^nd respondent, the petitioners have preferred a Special Revision Petition under Section 80(A) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 before the 1^st respondent.

3. The 1^st respondent is directed to dispose of the aforesaid Special Revision Petition filed by the petitioners dated 29.05.2025 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

4. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners.

5. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the issue.

6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 47415

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASG. R. Swaminathan, V. Lakshminarayanan, JJN.M. Shadiq Basha – AppellantVersusAdditional Chief Secretary (Technical) Housing and Urban Development Department – RespondentWP No. 20846 of 2026 | WMP.Nos.22481 & 22484 of 2026

When a statutory revision petition is pending before an authority, the Court may direct its expeditious disposal and grant interim relief against coercive enforcement actions until the merits of the case are determined by the concerned authority.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. R. Swaminathan, V. Lakshminarayanan, JJ
N.M. Shadiq Basha – Appellant
Versus
Additional Chief Secretary (Technical) Housing and Urban Development Department – Respondent
WP No. 20846 of 2026 | WMP.Nos.22481 & 22484 of 2026