Madras High Court
G.K.Mani vs The Additional Chief Secretary on 4 June, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
WP Nos. 19959, 19963, 19969,
19976 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-06-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
WP Nos. 19959, 19963, 19969, 19976 of 2025
AND
WMP Nos.22509, 22513, 22521 and 22524 of 2025
WP No.19959 of 2025
1. G.K.Mani
S/o. Kandasamy Gonder, Honorary
President Pattali Makkal Katchi, No. 63
North Muthu Naicken Street,
Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Additional Chief Secretary
Commissioner Of Revenue
Administration. Revenue Department
And Mitigation Department,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600
005.
2.The District Manager
TASMAC Ltd, Cuddalore District
3.The Distrit Manager,
TASMAC Ltd, Dharmapuri District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 04:07:04 pm )
WP Nos. 19959, 19963, 19969,
19976 of 2025
4.The District Manager
TASMAC Ltd, Kancheepuram District
5.The District Manager
TASMAC Ltd, Krishnagiri Disttict
6.The District Manager
TASMAC Ltd, Namakkal District
7.The District Manager
TASMAC Ltd, Nagapattinam District
8.The District Manager
TASMAC Ltd Perambalur District
9.The District Manager
TASMAC Ltd, Salem District
10.The District Manager
TASMAC Ltd, Thiruvallur Districti
11.The District Manager
TASMAC Ltd, Tiruvannamalai
District
12.The District Manager
TASMAC Ltd, Vellore District
13.The District Manager
TASMAC Ltd, Villupuram District
Respondent(s)
WP No. 19963 of 2025
1. G.K.Mani
S/o. Kandasamy Gounder, Honorary
President Pattali Makkal Katchi, No. 63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 04:07:04 pm )
WP Nos. 19959, 19963, 19969,
19976 of 2025
North Muthu Naicken Street,
Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Addl. Chief Secretary
Commissioenr of Revenue
Administration. Revenue Department
And Mitigation Department ,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600
005.
2.The General Managesr
State Express Transport Corporation
Tamilnadu Limited, Thiruvalluvar
House, Pallavan Salai, Chenani 600
002.
Respondent(s)
WP No. 19969 of 2025
1. G.K.Mani
S/o. Kandasamy Gounder, Honorary
President Pattali Makkal Katchi, No. 63
North Muthu Naicken Street,
Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Additional Chief Secretary
Commissioner Of Revenue
Administration. Revenue Department
And Mitigation Department,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 04:07:04 pm )
WP Nos. 19959, 19963, 19969,
19976 of 2025
005.
2.Metropolitan Transport Corporation
Chennai Limited,
Represented By Its General Manager,
Pallavan Salali, Chennai
Respondent(s)
WP No. 19976 of 2025
1. G.K.Mani
S/o. Kandasamy Gounder, Honorary
President Pattali Makkal Katchi, No. 63
North Muthu Naicken Street,
Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Additional Chief Secretary
Commissioner Of Revenue
Administration. Revenue Department
And Mitigation Department,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600
005.
2.The General Manager
State Expresses Transport
Corporatio, Tamilnadu Limited,
Thiruvalluvar Hosue, Pallavan Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER in WP No. 19959 of 2025
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of
writ of Mandamus forbearing the 1st respondent from passing final order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 04:07:04 pm )
WP Nos. 19959, 19963, 19969,
19976 of 2025
in S.R No. 455-482/TASMAC /2013 VIDE NOTICE DATED 12.05.2025
without following mandatory procedure as contemplated under section 11(4)
of the TNPPDL Act 1992 and Rule 14 and 15 of Rules 1992 and
consequently direct the 1st respondent to conduct the enquiry by following
the mandatory procedures as contemplated under section 11(4) of the
TNPPDL Act 1992 and Rule 14 and 15 of Rules 1992 and pass orders.
PRAYER in WP No. 19963 of 2025
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of
writ of Mandamus forbearing the 1st respondent from passing final order
in S.R No. 242-295/SETC /2013 VIDE NOTICE DATED 12.05.2025
without following mandatory procedure as contemplated under section 11(4)
of the TNPPDL Act 1992 and TNPPDL Rule 14 and 15 of Rules 1992 and
st
consequently direct the 1 respondent to conduct the enquiry by following
the mandatory procedure as contemplated under section 11(4) of the Act
1992 and Rule 14 and 15 of rules 1992 and pass orders.
PRAYER in WP No. 19969 of 2025
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of
writ of Mandamus forbearing the 1st respondent from passing final order
in S.R No. 184-241 and 943/MTC /RL/2013 VIDE NOTICE DATED
12.05.2025 without following mandatory procedure as contemplated under
section 11(4) of the TNPPDL Act 1992 and Rule 14 a nd 15 of TNPPDL
Rules 1992 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to conduct the enquiry
by following the mandatory procedure as contemplated under section 11(4)
of the TNPPDL Act and pass orders.
PRAYER in WP No. 19976 of 2025
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of
writ of Mandamus forbearing the 1st respondent from passing final order
in S.R No. 296-1069 TNSTC/2013 VIDE NOTICE DATED 12.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 04:07:04 pm )
WP Nos. 19959, 19963, 19969,
19976 of 2025
without following mandatory procedure as contemplated under section 11(4)
of the TNPPDL Act 1992 and Rule 14 and 15 of TNPPDL Rules 1992
and consequently direct the 1st respondent to conduct the enquiry by
following the mandatory procedure as contemplated under section 11(4) of
the Act 1992 and Rule 14 and 15 of Rules 1992 and pass orders.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.L.Raja, Senior Counsel for
Mr.K.Balu in all WPs
For Respondent: Mr.J.Ravindran, Additional
Advocate General, Assisted by
Mr.E.Vijay Anand, Additional
Government Pleader for R1 in all
WPS
Mr.K.Balakrishnan
Standing counsel for R2 and R3
in WP No.19959 of 2025
Mr.Hasan Fizal, Additional
Government Pleader for R2 in
WP No.19963 of 2025
MR.C.Gauthamaraj, Standing
counsel for R2 in WP No.19969
of 2025
Mr.HAsan Fizal, Additional
Government Pleader for R2 in
WP No.19976 of 2025
ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed for the issue of writ of
Mandamus forbearing the 1st respondent from passing final orders in the
pending proceedings without following the mandatory procedure as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 04:07:04 pm )
WP Nos. 19959, 19963, 19969,
19976 of 2025
contemplated under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of
Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 ( hereinafter referred to as the “TNPPDL Act”)
and Rule 14 and 15 of TNPPDL Rules 1992 and consequently, direct the 1st
respondent to conduct the enquiry by following the mandatory procedures.
2. Heard Mr.N.L.Raja, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Balu, learned
counsel for the petitioner in all Wps and Mr.J.Ravindran, Additional Advocate
General, Assisted by Mr.E.Vijay Anand, Additional Government Pleader for 1st
respondent in all Wps and the respective learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd
and 3rd respondent in all Wps.
3. The grievance that has been expressed by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in all these writ petitions is that
after the summon was received and the petitioner attended enquiry, the 1st
respondent informed the petitioner that only a summary enquiry will be
conducted and the 1st respondent was proceeding in a hasty manner without
following the mandatory procedure as contemplated under Section 11(4) of
the TNPPDL Act 1992 and Rule 14 and 15 of TNPPDL Rules 1992. It is
under these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed before this
Court.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General
appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the present writ petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 04:07:04 pm )
WP Nos. 19959, 19963, 19969,
19976 of 2025
has been filed only to stall the proceedings and to prevent the 1st respondent
from proceeding further with the enquiry and passing final orders. It was
submitted that in the earlier order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
WA Nos.288 and 292 of 2022 has spelt out the nature of enquiry to be
conducted in this case and that the directions that were issued at Paragraph No.6
of the order will be strictly complied with. The learned Additional Advocate
General submitted that all these writ petitions were filed only on an
apprehension and without any material to substantiate the same.
5. This Court has carefully considered the grievance expressed
by the petitioner and the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate
General with respect to the procedure that is going to be followed while
conducting the enquiry and passing the final order.
6. It will suffice to take note of Paragraph 5 and 6 of the earlier
order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.288 and 292 of
2022 dated 21.11.2023. For proper appreciation, the relevant portions in the
order are extracted hereunder:-
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 04:07:04 pm )
WP Nos. 19959, 19963, 19969,
19976 of 2025
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 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 ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 04:07:04 pm )
WP Nos. 19959, 19963, 19969,
19976 of 2025
7. The Division Bench has clearly spelt out the scope of Section
9 of the Act and also the procedure to be followed by the authority after
issuance of show cause notice. Hence, the 1st respondent is expected to comply
with these directions which is in line with the Act and Rules. Once such an
assurance is given by the 1st respondent, the apprehension raised by the
petitioner is sufficiently redressed. Hence, the same shall be kept in mind by the
1st respondent and the 1st respondent is directed to complete the enquiry and
pass final orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
8. This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
04-06-2025
rka
Note : Issue order copy on 05.06.2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 04:07:04 pm )
WP Nos. 19959, 19963, 19969,
19976 of 2025
To
1.The Addl. Chief Secretary
Commissioner Of Revenue
Administration. Revenue Department
And Mitigation Department,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600
2.The District Manager
Tasmac Ltd, Cuddalore District
3.The Distrit Manager,
Tasmac Ltd, Dharmapuri District
4.The District Manager
Tasmac Ltd, Kancheepuram District
5.The District Manager
Tasmac Ltd, Krishnagiri Dist
6.The District Manager
Tasmac Ltd, Namakkal District
7.The District Manager
Tasmac Ltd, Nagapattinam District
8.The District Manager
Tasmac Ltd Perambalur District
9.The District Manager
Tasmac Ltd, Salem District
10.The District Manager
Tasmac Ltd, Thiruvallur Districti
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 04:07:04 pm )
WP Nos. 19959, 19963, 19969,
19976 of 2025
11.The District Manager
Tasmac Ltd, Tiruvannamalai District
12.The District Manager
Tasmac Ltd, Vellore District
13.The District Manager
Tasmac Ltd, Villupuram District
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary
Commissioner Of Revenue
Administration. Revenue Department
And Mitigation Department ,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600
2.Metropolitan Transport Corporation
Chennai Limited,
Represented By Its General Manager,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai
To
1.The Addl. Chief Secretary
Commissioner Of Revenue
Administration, Revenue Department
And Mitigation Department ,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600
2.The General Manager
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 04:07:04 pm )
WP Nos. 19959, 19963, 19969,
19976 of 2025
State Express Transport Corporation
Tamilnadu Limited, Thiruvalluvar
House, Pallavan Salai, Chenani 600
To
1.The Addl. Chief Secretary
Commissioner Of Revenue
Administration. Revenue Department
And Mitigation Department ,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600
2.The General Manager
State Express Transport Corporation
Tamilnadu Limited, Thiruvalluvar
Hosue, Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 04:07:04 pm )
WP Nos. 19959, 19963, 19969,
19976 of 2025
N.ANAND VENKATESH J.
rka
WP Nos. 19959, 19963,
19969, 19976 of 2025
AND
WMP Nos.22509, 22513,
22521 and 22524 of 2025
04-06-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 04:07:04 pm )
