M. KANTHIMATHINATHAN Vs. DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein, being aggrieved by the order dtd. 26/12/2025, passed by the Commissioner, Thoothukudi Corporation / second respondent, is before this Court seeking to quash the same.

(2.) Earlier, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.3395 of 2025 seeking a direction to the official respondents to consider his representation dtd. 16/12/2024 seeking not to demolish the unauthorized construction in the subject property, when a demolition notice was issued to him on 12/12/2024 under Ss. 134, 135(1) and 180 of the Tamil Nadu Urban and Local Bodies Act, 1998. This Court, by an order dtd. 5/2/2025 disposed of the said writ petition by directing the authorities concerned to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders before proceeding with the action of removal of the unauthorized construction made by the petitioner in the subject property, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to rectify the defects and deviations pointed out in the demolition notice. Thereafter, it appears that one Devika / fourth respondent herein filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.22571 of 2025 seeking a direction to the respondent - Corporation, to conclude the enquiry proceedings initiated under the demolition notice dtd. 12/12/2024 as per the orders passed by this Court, dtd. 5/2/2025, in W.P.(MD) No.3395 of 2023. This Court, by an order dtd. 25/8/2025 disposed of the said writ petition by directing the Municipal Authorities to act upon the final order dtd. 20/8/2025 passed by the respondent - Corporation regarding removal of the unauthorized construction made by the petitioner herein in the subject property and twelve weeks time was granted to complete the said exercise. As a consequence thereof, the present impugned proceedings, dtd. 26/12/2025, came to be issued by the Commissioner, Thoothukudi Corporation and challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the building is 100 years old and it is not in violation of any Building Rules. Just because the fourth respondent / Devika, who happens to be a sister of the petitioner herein, made some objections, the respondent - Municipality is taking coercive steps against the petitioner.