IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date: 10.2.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.3117 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 G.Indra. ... Petitioner vs. The Commissioner, Chengalpattu Municipality, Chengalpattu. ... Respondent Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned notice Na.Ka.2/2011/F1, dated 02.02.2011 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently forebear the respondent his men, agents or subordinates from evicting and demolishing the house of the petitioner at New No.43, Old No.14, Kailasanadhar Koil Street, Chengalpattu 603 002, except by Due Process of Law. For Petitioner : Mr.P.S.Ratnamani For Respondent : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Government Advocate. O R D E R Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned notice Na.Ka.2/2011/F1, dated 02.02.2011 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently forebear the respondent, his men, agents or subordinates from evicting and demolishing the house of the petitioner at New No.43, Old No.14, Kailasanadhar Koil Street, Chengalpattu 603 002, except by due process of law. 2. Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the tenor of the notice issued by the respondent under Sections 182, 183 and 199 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. The Act provides for taking action under Section 182 after issuance of notice in writing and after giving two weeks time to the alleged encroacher to remove the encroachment. In this case, the impugned order directs the petitioner to remove the structure stating that it is an encroachment. 4. Petitioner can prove before the authority that he has not encroached or engaged in unauthorized construction by a reply referring to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act. This has been emphasized by this Court in the case of Ramaraju.T. - vs. - The State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2005 (2) CTC 741 (FB). 5. In view of the mandate as per law and the decision as above and in order to avoid further litigation, this Court is of the view that instead of setting aside the impugned notice/order, it will be appropriate to direct the petitioner to submit his reply treating the impugned proceeding as a show-cause notice. Such reply should be submitted within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. On receipt of such reply together with sufficient documents, if any, the authority shall conclude the proceedings in the matter as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. Till a final order is passed based on the reply of the petitioner, the authority shall not engage in removal or demolition of the structure in dispute. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar ts To The Commissioner,Chengalpattu Municipality, Chengalpattu. + 1 cc to Mr.P.S. Rathinamani, Advocate Sr.10624 W.P.No.3117 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 TAM(CO) EU 28.2.11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/