SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 48082

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Dhandapani, J
R. Raghupathi – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Cuddalore Municipality – Respondent
WP NO. 3966 OF 2020|WMP NO. 4710 OF 2020|WP NO. 3969 OF 2020|WMP NO. 4711 OF 2020|WP NO. 3965 OF 2020|WMP NO. 4709 OF 2020|WP NO. 7320 OF 2021|WMP NO. 7825 OF 2021|WMP NO. 6011 OF 2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D. Baskar
For the Respondents: B. Anand

When a dispute arises concerning municipal demand notices and potential eviction, the court may bypass immediate judicial adjudication, instead mandating that the aggrieved party submit a formal reply and the authority resolve the matter through a reasoned order following the principles of natural justice and fair opportunity.

Headnote:The present proceedings arise from petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging various demand notices issued by municipal authorities in respect of tenanted shop premises. The petitioners sought to quash the notices and prevent eviction without due process. The core issue involves the legality of the demand notices and the potential for eviction of tenants following the expiry of lease periods. The court observed that the disputes required administrative adjudication rather than immediate judicial intervention, emphasizing the necessity of following natural justice principles. The court found it appropriate to direct the parties to representations to ensure all contentions are formally considered. The court disposed of the writ petitions with directions for the petitioners to submit their replies to the demand notices within two weeks, and for the respondents to adjudicate the issues and pass reasoned orders within four weeks after providing an opportunity of hearing.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts involving challenges to municipal demand notices. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. court’s mandate for administrative adjudication following principles of natural justice. (Para 5)

Common Order

Aggrieved by the impugned order of demand notice dated 17.02.2021, 10.09.2019 & 10.12.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Cuddalore Municipality and Revenue Officer, Cuddalore Municipality respectively, the present Writ Petitions have been filed. Further, the petitioners have sought for a relief to restrain the respondents from evicting the petitioners herein from their Shops, namely, Nos.1 to 4 & 9 situated at Bharathi Road & Beach Road, Cuddalore respectively.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials available on record. Since the issue involved in these petitions are one and the same, they are disposed of by way of a common order.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners herein are the tenants of the Shops owned by the Cuddalore Municipality and they have been issued with the demand notice on 17.02.2021, 10.09.2019 & 10.12.2019 respectively. He further submitted that the petitioners may be permitted to submit their reply to the demand notice and after considering the same, the authorities may pass appropriate orders in the subject issue and thus, prayed for appropriate orders..

4. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel for the respondents submitted that the lease period of the subject shops were expired in the year 2025 itself and the petitioners did not sought for any extension time for their lease. However, he submitted that if the respondents receive any reply to the demand notice from the petitioners, the same will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed by the respondents in accordance with law, within a reasonable time.

5. On considering the facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the issuance of demand notice by the respondents to the petitioners herein cannot be entertained at threshold, as the same requires adjudication. However, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court permits the petitioners to render their reply to the demand notice, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of any such reply from the petitioners, the respondent concerned are directed to adjudicate the subject issue and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the reply of the petitioners therefrom.

6. With the above directions, the Writ Petitions are disposed of.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition(s) are closed, if any. There shall be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top