[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
S.R.P.Enterprises vs Executive Engineer on 9 March, 2026
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
WP No. 7841 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
WP No. 7841 of 2026
S.R.P.Enterprises
Represented by its Partner,
Mr. P.M. Ravindran,
Vadapalani, Chennai-600 026
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
Town planning section- Kodambakkam,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
No.64, NSK Salai Kodambakkam,
Chennai-600 024.
2. Doshi Constructions,
A Partnership firm Registered
under the Indian Partnership Act,
Having its registered Office at,
No.3H, Century Plaza,
No.560, Teynampet, Chennai600 018,
Represented by its Partner Mr. Mehul.H.Doshi
..Respondent(s)
Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records
relating to the undated Demolition Permission Ref.
No.DA/WDCN10/00917/2025 issued by the Executive Engineer, Town
Planning Section - Kodambakkam of the Greater Chennai Corporation and
quash the same and thereby forbear the Respondents from in any manner
proceeding with the demolition of the portions in occupation of the petitioner
and its adjacent structures pending adjudication of C.S. No.574 of 2010 for all
the reasons mentioned in the accompanying affidavit this Court.
__________
Page1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 06:48:01 pm )
WP No. 7841 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, SC
for Mr.Aditya Sarangarajan
For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar (R1)
Mr.R.Parthasarathy, SC
for Mr.Rahul Balaji (R2)
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned demolition
permission granted in favour of the second respondent for the property
morefully disclosed in the demolition permission.
2. The petitioner is one of the sub-tenants under occupation of a portion
of the building in question. The petitioner claims that the impugned demolition
sanction has been obtained contrary to the directions issued by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.10336 of 2023, dated 25.01.2024. According
to the petitioner, the procedure directed to be followed as directed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has not been adhered to by the first respondent while
granting impugned demolition permission.
3. Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the
first respondent.
4. Mr.Rahul Balaji, learned counsel, undertakes to file vakalat on behalf
of the second respondent, and is represented by Mr.R.Parthasarathy, learned
Senior counsel.
__________
Page2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 06:48:01 pm )
5. At the outset, the learned Senior counsel for the second respondent on
instructions would submit that with regard to the petitioner’s portion of the
building, which is under occupation of the petitioner as sub-tenant, the second
respondent will not disturb their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
property, and they will also not disturb the petitioner’s free ingress and egress to
reach their property. He has also placed on record before this Court the said
undertaking said to have been given by the second respondent before the first
respondent. The said undertaking is hereby recorded by this Court.
6. However, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit
that when the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made it clear in its order dated
25.01.2024, passed in SLP (Civil) No.10336 of 2023, that the directions
imposed by the Supreme Court in the said order has to be strictly adhered to,
necessarily, the same will have to be adhered to by the first respondent before
before granting demolition sanction in favour of the second respondent.
According to him, the procedure contemplated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the aforesaid order has not been adhered to by first respondent, and hence, the
undertaking given by the second respondent before this Court as recorded supra
has to be rejected by this Court.
7. Any party approaching this Court seeking for protection of his legal
right can seek protection only for himself and not on behalf of others. In the
__________
Page3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 06:48:01 pm )
instant case, the petitioner’s right is adequately protected by the undertaking
given by the second respondent before this Court that they shall not disturb the
petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property under their
occupation as sub-tenant, and that the petitioner’s free ingress and egress to
reach their property will also not be disturbed by the second respondent.
8. In addition to the undertaking given by the second respondent before
this Court, the petitioner can also seek for additional safeguards if they so
require to protect their interest as a sub-tenant. The apprehension of the
petitioner can be restricted only to their property and not to others, who are
under occupation in the very same building, for which demolition sanction has
been granted by the first respondent, which is the subject matter of challenge in
this writ petition. If anyone under occupation is affected by the demolition
permission, they will have to approach the appropriate legal forum by instituting
separate proceedings. Since the petitioner’s interest with regard to protection of
their property as a sub-tenant is adequately protected by the undertaking given
by the second respondent, which is an unconditional one, the blanket prayer
sought for by the petitioner challenging the impugned demolition permission
granted for the entire building cannot be entertained by this Court.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is disposed of in the
following manner:-
__________
Page4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 06:48:01 pm )
(a) The second respondent shall not disturb and interfere
with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of
their property under occupation as a sub-tenant.
(b) The second respondent shall not disturb the free
ingress and egress of the petitioner or their employees to
reach their property under occupation as a sub-tenant.
(c) In case of any violation, the petitioner is at liberty to
approach the appropriate legal forum to adjudicate their
rights.
(d) The second respondent shall not cause any hindrance
to the amenities that have been so far enjoyed by the
petitioner.
(e) Since the Civil Suit is pending with regard to the
subject matter of the dispute, the order passed in this writ
petition will not have any bearing in the civil suit.
No Costs. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.
09-03-2026
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
RKM
To
1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER town planning
section- Kodambakkam,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
No.64, NSK Salai Kodambakkam,
Chennai-600 024
__________
Page5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 06:48:01 pm )
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
RKM
09-03-2026
__________
Page6 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 06:48:01 pm )
