P RATHINASABAPATHY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is listed today for admission and I heard the counsel for both sides.

(2.) THE petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to implement the orders of the third respondent under Na. Ka. No. 3969/2005/f-1 dated 06. 07. 2005 and 14. 08. 2006 for demolishing the dilapidated building situated in t. S. No. 211/1, 211/2 and 212 of Ward No. 5, Block No. 4 and bearing Old Door no. 8 and 8-A, New Door No. 17 and 17/1, Malaikatti Street, Chidambaram " 608 001, Cuddalore District.

(3.) IT is necessary to mention that the petitioner has not challenged the communication dated 29. 01. 2007 of the third respondent wherein the third respondent has expressed its view that it is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 218 of the Act. The other vital factor in this case is that the petitioner has given notice to the tenants who are in occupation of the building, but they were not arrayed as parties in this writ petition. Once notice is issued to the tenants on the ground that immediate demolition is warranted for which even they have not responded, still, they are necessary parties. Moreover, the third respondent's latest view that the building is not in ruined condition is unchallenged.