Madras High Court
G.K.Mani vs The Additional Chief Secretary on 21 November, 2023
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: Sanjay V.Gangapurwala, D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
WA Nos.288 and 292 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.11.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
WA Nos.288 and 292 of 2022
and CMP Nos.2029, 2031, 2038 and 2040 of 2022
G.K.Mani .. Appellant in WA.288/2022
Pattali Makkal Katchi,
Rep. by its President, G.K.Mani. .. Appellant in WA.292/2022
-vs-
1. The Additional Chief Secretary,
Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Revenue Department – Administration
Disaster Management and
Mitigation Department, Ezhilagam,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. .. 1st Respondent in both WAs
2. The District Manager,
Tasmac Ltd., Namakkal District. .. 2nd Respondent in
WA.288/2022
2. The General Manager,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation
(Chennai) Limited, Pallavan House,
Chennai 600 002. .. 2nd Respondent in
WA.292/2022
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA Nos.288 and 292 of 2022
Prayer: Writ appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 04.10.2021 and
23.09.2021 passed in W.P.No.29039 of 2013 and W.P.No.4072 of 2014
respectively.
For the Appellants : Mr.N.L.Rajah
Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.Balu
For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar
State Govt. Pleader for R-1
in both WAs.
: Mr.J.Ravindran
Addl. Advocate General
assisted by Mr.Sathishkumar,
Govt. Advocate in WA.288/2022
: Mr.M.Chidambaram
for R-2 in WA.292/2022
*****
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants, Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader, for
respondent No.1 and Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate
General for respondent No.2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA Nos.288 and 292 of 2022
2. The show cause notices were issued to the appellants under
the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and
Loss) Act, 1992 (in short 'the Act') claiming compensation. The
appellants assailed the same by filing writ petitions. The learned
Single Judge did not entertain the writ petitions and directed the
enquiry to be concluded.
3. Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants/
petitioners submits that the impugned show cause notices are without
jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 9 of the Act 1992 could not
have been invoked inasmuch as there was no loss to the property. The
property has been defined under Section 2 (4) of the Act. The
definition of property would not engulf the revenue loss or the loss
sustained because the shop was required to be closed or the buses
could not ply on the road. In view of that, the notices being without
jurisdiction, the Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Senior Advocate further
submits that the notices have been issued to an individual and not to a
political party. The notice to an individual also would not be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA Nos.288 and 292 of 2022
maintainable. No individual act is attributed to the appellants. The
learned Senior Advocate also relies upon the judgment of the learned
Single Judge of this Court dated 12.09.2022 in W.P.No.24426 of 2014
(between Pattali Makkal Katchi vs. The Addl. Chief Secretary and
Another). The learned Senior Advocate further submits that the
appellants are acquitted of the offences alleged against them.
4. The show cause notices are impugned by filing writ petitions.
This Court would be slow in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution qua challenge to a show cause notice. The
exception would be if the show cause notice is issued without
jurisdiction.
5. The property has been defined under the Act. The provision is
also made regarding the liability to pay compensation in certain cases.
Whether actually the shops were required to be kept closed or the
buses could not ply and because of that there was loss of revenue
would be a disputed question of fact which certainly will have to be
considered by the authority. The authority also would be required to
consider as to whether the loss of revenue would be within the realm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA Nos.288 and 292 of 2022
of the definition of property. These aspects certainly will have to be
considered by the authority before passing final order determining
compensation under Section 9 of the Act. The same requires an
enquiry. The appellants have got opportunity to file reply to the notices
as contemplated under Section 9 of the Act and even an appellate
remedy is provided against the same.
6. The learned Senior Advocate submits that one reply has been
filed by the appellants to the show cause notices and opportunity be
given to file additional reply. The appellants may file additional reply
within fifteen days from today. The appellants may rely upon the
documents and judgments as may be applicable and the authority
certainly has to consider all the documents and judgments which
would be cited by either of the parties. Upon receipt of the additional
reply, documents and judgments relied upon by the appellants, the
authority shall proceed further pursuant to the show cause notices and
decide the same in accordance with law. The authority may also
consider the contention of the appellants regarding the effect of
acquittal in the criminal cases.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA Nos.288 and 292 of 2022
With these observations, the writ appeals stand disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
21.11.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sra
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary,
Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Revenue Department – Administration
Disaster Management and
Mitigation Department, Ezhilagam,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
2. The District Manager,
Tasmac Ltd., Namakkal District.
3. The General Manager,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation
(Chennai) Limited, Pallavan House,
Chennai 600 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA Nos.288 and 292 of 2022
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
(sra)
WA Nos.288 and 292 of 2022
21.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
