A demolition clock cannot start ticking before a citizen is heard. That, in essence, was the message delivered by the Madras High Court while striking down a removal notice issued against a temple structure in north Chennai.
The dispute centred on a temple in Kodungaiyur’s Ward 34, where the Greater Chennai Corporation claimed the structure had encroached upon public land and a roadway. Acting under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, the civic body ordered that the alleged encroachment be cleared within seven days. The notice warned that if the structure was not removed, authorities would demolish it without further communication and recover the costs from the petitioner.
The Bench, led by Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan, found the tone and structure of the notice troubling. It did not invite an explanation. It did not seek a defence. Instead, it declared a conclusion and set a deadline.
In the Court’s reading, the Corporation had already made up its mind. A notice, the judges observed, cannot masquerade as a verdict.
The matter was not unfolding in isolation. In an earlier round of litigation, the High Court had directed a Divisional Monitoring Committee to examine the alleged encroachment and, crucially, to give those concerned a meaningful opportunity to present their case before any action was taken. The latest communication, however, jumped straight to removal.
When the Corporation attempted to argue that the demolition direction should be treated as a show-cause notice, the Bench declined to accept that characterisation. A genuine show-cause notice, the Court implied, asks a question before announcing an answer.
The judges emphasised that Section 128 itself contemplates procedural safeguards. Before an immovable encroachment is removed, the affected party must receive a show-cause notice, be allowed to submit a representation, and have that representation considered with due application of mind. These are not ornamental steps—they are mandatory.
Civil consequences demand procedural fairness. The Court described adherence to natural justice as indispensable, especially when state power threatens to alter property rights or demolish structures.
In reinforcing this principle, the Bench referred to the Constitution Bench ruling in Mohinder Singh Gill v Chief Election Commissioner, underscoring that compliance with natural justice is an inviolable rule, not a technicality that can be brushed aside when inconvenient.
Finding the notice fundamentally flawed, the Court set it aside. However, it did not shut the door on future action. The Corporation has been granted liberty to begin afresh—this time by issuing a proper show-cause notice, furnishing the inspection report, allowing a reasonable opportunity to respond, and proceeding strictly in accordance with law.
In short, if the city wishes to clear the ground, it must first clear the process.
