1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:23.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI Writ Petition(MD)No.10738 of 2011 H.Abdul Niaz :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Commissioner, Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation, Tirunelveli. 2.The Assistant Commissioner, Thachanallur Zone, Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation, Tirunelveli. 3.The Member Secretary, Tirunelveli Local Planning Authority, Trivandrum Road, Tirunelveli-2. 4.A.Balasubramanian :Respondents PRAYER:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 24.08.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.4539- 2011-TP1 and quash the same and further forbearing the 1st and 2nd respondents not to disturb the petitioner's hotel business without taking any lawful action against this petitioner. For Petitioner :Mr.M.Vallinayagam For 3rd Respondent:Mr.M.Govindan,Special Government Pleader For Respondents 1&2:Mr.S.P.Maharajan For 4th Respondent :Mr.G.Mohankumar ORDER The writ petitioner is running a hotel in D.No.105/3, Trivandrum Road, Murugankurichi and the fourth respondent is the owner of the premises. It is the case of the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent that in respect of the building put up by the fourth respondent, there was no notice served by the Corporation alleging any deviation. 2.However, according to the learned counsel for the Corporation, it is because of the deviation having been effected, by virtue of the powers conferred under the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act which is applicable to the Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation, under Section 296(3), a notice was issued and in spite of the time of 24 hours having been given, the unauthorised construction was not removed and therefore, the hotel premises was sealed in accordance with the powers conferred under the Act. 3.Inasmuch as the fourth respondent has taken the stand that for the unauthorised construction, no notice has been served on him, I am of the considered view that it is always https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 open to the first and second respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with the Act after serving appropriate notice to the owner namely, the fourth respondent and also the occupier namely, the writ petitioner. 4.It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the petitioner is running the hotel as a tenant under the fourth respondent has not been served with any notice. 5.In such view of the matter, the impugned notice stands set aside with a direction to the first and second respondents to hand over the possession of the said hotel by removing the lock stated to have been made by the second respondent. Making it clear that it is always open to the first and second respondents to take appropriate action against the fourth respondent, if there are any deviation or unauthorised construction put up by them, in accordance with the provisions of the abovesaid Act and after giving appropriate notice to the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent. The removal of the lock shall be effected by the second respondent. 6.Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Commissioner, Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation, Tirunelveli. 2.The Assistant Commissioner, Thachanallur Zone, Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation, Tirunelveli. 3.The Member Secretary, Tirunelveli Local Planning Authority, Trivandrum Road, Tirunelveli-2. +1CC to Mr.S.P.Maharajan, Advocate. SR.No.33013. Sms Writ Petition(MD)No.10738 of 2011 RP/26.09.2011/2P/5C. 23.09.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/