1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:16.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Petition (MD)No.13051 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 1.M.Edward 2.Muniyandi, S/o.Arumugam 3.Arulgnana Sagayarajan, S/o.Melki :Petitioners -Vs- 1.The District Collector,Ramanthatpuram District,Ramanathapuram. 2.The Commissioner,Rameswaram Municipality,Rameswaram. :Respondents Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.345/10/A2, dated 03.11.2011 and quashing the same. For Petitioners: Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan For Respondents: Mr.K.Mahendran,Spl.Govt.Pleader. ORDER [Order of the Court was made K.N.BASHA, J] Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents. By mutual consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing at the time of admission itself. 2.The petitioners have come forward with this writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings of the 2nd respondent issued in Na.Ka.No.345/10/A2, dated 03.11.2011, stating that they are in encroachment of the property belonged to the 2nd respondent Municipality in Survey Nos.121/27A1, 121/26, which is against the provisions of Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 and thereby directing the petitioners to remove the encroachments made by them within 15 days, failing which the same will be removed by the employees of 2nd respondent Municipality and the expenses incurred towards such removal would be recovered from the petitioners. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that earlier, when a similar notice was issued by the 2nd respondent on 27.07.2011, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(MD)No.8930 of 2011 and this Court, by order dated 09.08.2011, directed that the said notice should be treated as a show-cause notice and after obtaining objections/explanation of the petitioners, the 2nd respondent should pass orders in the manner known to law. Learned counsel would further submit that though the petitioners submitted their explanation on 18.08.2011, the 2nd respondent, without considering the same, has again issued the impugned notice straightaway directing the petitioners to vacate from the alleged encroachments. 4.Heard the learned Special Government Pleader on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He would contend that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned notice issued by the 2nd respondent. It is contended that as per the provisions of Section 182 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, the 2nd respondent can very well issue the impugned notice. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the counsel on either side and also perused the impugned notice as well as the earlier order of this Court dated 09.08.2011 made in W.P.(MD)No.8930 of 2011. 6.The fact remains that the very same petitioners had earlier approached this Court challenging a similar notice issued by the 2nd respondent and this Court by its order dated 09.08.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.8930 of 2011 passed the following order. "3.In such view of the matter, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 27.07.2011 should be treated as show-cause notice and the petitioners are permitted to submit their explanation. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of by directing the 2nd respondent to treat the impugned notice dated 27.07.2011 as show-cause to the petitioners and the petitioners are permitted to give their objections within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, it is open to the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders in the manner known to law. 4.It is made clear that till such orders re passed, status quo as on today in respect of the possession of the petitioners shall be maintained. ..." 7.A perusal of the impugned notice reveals that the order of this Court, dated 09.08.2011, passed in WP(MD)No.8930 of 2011, was not at all considered or referred to by the 2nd respondent. On the other hand, some other orders passed by this Court is referred to. Further, the objections/explanations submitted by the petitioners on 18.08.2011 have also not been taken into considered. 8.In view of the above, we are constrained to set aside the present impugned notice, dated 03.11.2011, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to proceed with the earlier notice, dated 27.07.2011, on the basis of the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 09.08.2011 in W.P.(MD)No.8930 of 2011, by considering the objections of the petitioners dated 18.08.2011 and also giving an opportunity to the petitioners and only thereafter the 2nd respondent has to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. It is made clear that such an exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time, there shall be an order of status-quo in respect of the possession of the petitioners in the disputed premises as on date. 9.The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P (MD)No.2 of 2011 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To:1.The District Collector, Ramanthatpuram District,Ramanathapuram. 2.The Commissioner,Rameswaram Municipality,Rameswaram. +1CC to M/s.P.T.S.Narendravasan, Advocate. SR.No.39842. +1CC to The Special Government Pleader. SR.No.40249. Gb Order in W.P.(MD)No.13051/2011 and MP(MD)No.2 of 2011 RP/21.11.2011/2P/5C.Dated:16.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/