Madras High Court
C.Natesan vs The District Collector on 3 February, 2025
Author: M.Sundar
Bench: M.Sundar
W.P.No.3276 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
W.P.No.3276 of 2025
and
W.M.P.No.3635 of 2025
1. C.Natesan
S/o.Chinnu Pandaram
2. C.Muthusamy
S/o.Chinnu Pandaram ...Petitioners
Vs
1. The District Collector
Namakkal District.
2. The District Revenue Officer
Namakkal District.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Namakkal, Namakkal District.
4. The Tahsildar
Rasipuram Taluk
Namakkal District - 637 407.
Page Nos.1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3276 of 2025
5. The Executive Officer
R.Pudhupatti Town Panchayat
Rasipuram Taluk
Namakkal District - 637 407. ...Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relevant to
impugned notice in Na.Ka.252/2024 dated 15.11.2024 issued by the 5th
respondent herein and quash the same and consequently, direct the 2nd
respondent herein to pass appropriate orders on the appeal dated 26.12.2024
made by the petitioners herein.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Sundaravadanam
For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan
Government Advocate
for R1 to R5
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,]
Captioned main 'Writ Petition' {hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of
brevity} has been filed inter alia assailing a 'notice dated 15.11.2024
bearing reference Na.Ka.252/2024 issued by R5 [the Executive Officer,
R.Pudhupatti Town Panchayat, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District - 637
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
407]' {hereinafter 'impugned notice' for the sake of brevity, convenience
and clarity}.
2. Mr.T.Sundaravadanam, learned counsel on record for writ
petitioners submitted that Section 178 of 'The Tamil Nadu Urban Local
Bodies Act, 1998 (Act 9 of 1999)' (hereinafter 'TNULB Act' for the sake of
convenience and clarity) deals with non-removal of solid waste or debris by
industrial units, whereas even according to impugned notice neither the writ
petitioners are industrial units / persons carrying on industrial activities nor
is it a case of non-removal of solid waste or debris. Learned counsel
pointed out that impugned notice has been issued under Sections 178(1)(b)
and (2) of TNULB Act.
3. Issue notice.
4. Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice
for all five respondents and submits, on instructions that a typographical /
inadvertent secretarial error has crept in in impugned notice and instead of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Section 128 of TNULB Act, Section 178 of TNULB Act has been typed. In
other words, learned counsel submits that the impugned notice is one under
Section 128(1)(b) of TNULB Act.
5. The scope of captioned main WP is substantially narrow, legal drill
on hand is very limited and therefore, with the consent of learned counsel
on both sides, main WP is taken up in the Admission Board i.e., Motion
List.
6. In the facts and circumstances of case on hand, we find that
inadvertent secretarial / typographical error in the impugned notice does not
nullify the same. It does not denude R5 of his authority to act under
TNULB Act.
7. Before we proceed further, we deem it appropriate to extract and
reproduce entire Section 128 of TNULB Act and the same reads as follows:
'128. Power to remove encroachment from public place. - (1)
The Commissioner may, -
(a) remove without any notice any movable temporary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
structure, enclosure, stall, booth, any article whatsoever hawked,
exposed or displayed for sale or any other thing whatsoever by way
of encroaching street or public place or the [land belonging to or
vested with the municipality] with the municipal limit;
(b) remove any immovable structure whether permanent or of
temporary nature encroaching the street or public place or the
[land belonging to municipality or vested with the municipality]
within the municipal limit, after issuing a show cause notice for
such removal, returnable within a period of seven days from the
date of receipt thereof:
Provided that the Commissioner shall consider any
representation received within the time limit, before passing final
orders.
(2) Whoever makes any encroachment in any land or space
(not being private property) in any public street or any [land
belonging to or vested with the municipality] within the municipal
limit, shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment which
shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years
and with fine which may extend to [fifty thousand rupees]:
Provided that the Court may, for any adequate or special
reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of
imprisonment for a term of less than one year.'
8. If the impugned notice is one under Section 128(1)(b) of TNULB
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Act, writ petitioners should be given seven days time to respond to
impugned notice and thereafter, R5 should pass an order based on such
representation. To be noted, Section 128 of TNULB Act talks about
'Commissioner'. We are now concerned with Town Panchayat. Sub-section
(7) of Section 2 of TNULB Act, defined 'Commissioner' and the same reads
as follows:
'2. Definitions. - In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires-
(1) .................
(2) ................
(3) .................
(4) .................
(5) .................
(6) ................
(7) "Commissioner" means -
(a) in relation to a municipal corporation and municipal
council, the Commissioner of the municipal corporation or municipal
council, as the case may be; and
(b) in relation to a town panchayat, the Executive Officer of
the town panchayat; '
9. A careful perusal of clause (b) of sub-section (7) of Section 2 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TNULB Act makes it clear that Executive Officer of Town Panchayat is the
'Commissioner' within the meaning of TNULB Act. Therefore, the power of
R5 to issue a notice under Section 128(1)(b) of TNULB Act is clear.
10. Reverting to the case on hand, learned counsel for writ petitioners
pointed out that writ petitioners have already responded to the impugned
notice vide communication dated 21.12.2024. Learned counsel made a
request that the impugned notice may now be treated as a 'Show Cause
Notice' {'SCN'}, writ petitioners' response to the same dated 21.12.2024
may please be treated as representation within the meaning of Section
128(1)(b) of TNULB Act. This request is fair and the same is acceded to.
This means that R5 should now pass final orders under proviso to Section
128(1)(b) of TNULB Act by considering the representation of writ
petitioners i.e., representation / response dated 21.12.2024.
11. Learned State Counsel submits that final orders will be passed by
R5 as expeditiously as the business of R5 would permit but in any event
within a fortnight from today i.e., by 17.02.2025. This submission is
recorded.
12. The sum sequitur of the narrative thus far is, writ petitioners have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
been show caused, writ petitioners have responded vide response dated
21.12.2024 and it is now for R5 to pass final orders vide proviso to Section
128(1)(b) of TNULB Act, which according to learned State Counsel will be
done within a fortnight.
Recording the stated position of learned State Counsel, captioned
main WP is disposed of as closed. Consequently, captioned Writ
Miscellaneous Petition thereat is also disposed of as closed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
[M.S.,J.] [K.G.T.,J.]
03.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
mk
To
1. The District Collector
Namakkal District.
2. The District Revenue Officer
Namakkal District.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Namakkal, Namakkal District.
4. The Tahsildar
Rasipuram Taluk
Namakkal District - 637 407.
5. The Executive Officer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.Pudhupatti Town Panchayat
Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District - 637 407.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
