High Court Sets Aside Premature Removal Notice, Directs Fresh Show‑Cause Procedure

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan heard a writ petition challenging a notice dated 15.09.2025 that ordered removal of a temple encroachment in Ward‑34, Zone‑4 of Greater Chennai Corporation; the petitioner R. Jaya contended the notice was a pre‑decided removal order and violated an earlier direction of this Court in W.P. No. 33832 of 2024. The respondents included the District Collector, the Commissioner (HR & CE), the Corporation Commissioner and local municipal officers; the fifth respondent was the private party who had earlier filed the writ that initiated the enquiry.

The High Court set aside the impugned notice, holding that it was not a bona fide show‑cause notice but a premeditated decision that effectively directed removal without affording the petitioner the statutory and procedural protections mandated under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 and this Court’s earlier order. The Court observed that where a notice "prejudged the issue" a writ challenge was maintainable and rejected the Corporation’s submission that the document should be treated as a show‑cause notice. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The aforesaid provision in unequivocal terms regulates the exercise of power by incorporating the principles of natural justice by providing that the action may be taken only after issuing show cause notice for such removal returnable within the stipulated period. The proviso obliges the Commissioner to consider the representation received within the time limited before passing final orders.

Therefore, it is sine qua non for exercise of power of removal that person against whom the said action is proposed should be given a show cause notice, representation received and consideration by due application of mind based on materials available/collected during the enquiry and supply to the affected party. This minimal exercise is necessary irrespective of whether or not there is express provision.” The Court allowed the Corporation liberty to initiate fresh proceedings by issuing a proper show‑cause notice accompanied by the inspection report and by giving a reasonable opportunity to reply; the writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

Background

The dispute arose after a private litigant (the fifth respondent) filed W.P. No. 33832 of 2024 alleging that a temple constructed at Kodungaiyur encroached upon a municipal road. In that earlier petition this Court directed the jurisdictional Divisional Monitoring Committee to examine the existence of encroachment and “ensure that adequate and ample opportunity is given to persons concerned more particularly alleged encroachers (R6 & R7) before taking a call,” preserving all rights and contentions of alleged encroachers to be considered on merits. The Revenue Commissioner carried out a field survey, reported that the temple stood on a road belonging to the Greater Chennai Corporation, and asked the Corporation to remove the encroachment. The Corporation issued the notice dated 15.09.2025 which, on its face, required removal within seven days and threatened removal “without any notice under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998,” and held the petitioner liable for costs.

R. Jaya filed W.P. No. 4792 of 2026 under Article 226, challenging the notice on the ground that it was a final removal order in substance and contravened the earlier directions to afford opportunity; the petitioner sought quashing and a direction to consider her representation in accordance with law. The Corporation argued that the document was merely a show‑cause notice. Relying on Supreme Court authority on premeditated notices and on principles of natural justice, the High Court found the impugned document to be prejudicial and in direct conflict with both Section 128 and the Court’s prior directions. The Court set aside the notice as unsustainable and directed that if the Corporation proposed to proceed it must issue a fresh show‑cause notice together with a copy of the inspection report and afford reasonable time and an opportunity to be heard before passing any final order. There were no interim stay directions; the final result was that the writ petition was allowed and the impugned notice quashed, with liberty to initiate proceedings afresh compliantly.

Case Details:
Case No.: W.P. No. 4792 of 2026
Case Title: R. Jaya v. The District Collector and others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Kamachi D. (Advocate)
For the Respondent(s): Mr. M. Habeeb Rahman, Government Advocate (for R1); Mr. N.R.R. Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader (HR & CE) (for R2); Mr. A. Arun Babu, Standing Counsel (for R3 and R4)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 22