Encroachers Cannot Seek Certiorari Against Removal Notices Without Timely Representation Under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act.

The petitioners, who operate various small-scale businesses (nursery garden, fruit shops, fast food, etc.) abutting the highways in Pudukkottai District, filed writ petitions seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash eviction notices issued by the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Highways) dated 29.06.2026.

The petitioners claimed they had submitted representations against the notices as permitted by law. However, the court noted a significant chronological discrepancy: the impugned notice was dated 29.06.2026, the writ petitions were filed on 23.07.2026, but the petitioners claimed to have made representations dated 30.07.2026 (a future date relative to the hearing).

The petitioners admitted to having movables stacked along the highway.

1. Whether the impugned notices issued under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act are liable to be quashed despite the procedural and chronological inconsistencies in the petitioners' claims.

2. Whether the authorities have the mandate to remove obstructions abutting the highways and the procedure for considering representations therein.

The court primarily applied Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, which empowers highway authorities to remove encroachments or obstructions.

Specifically, Section 28(2) provides the procedural framework for issuing notices and considering representations from aggrieved parties before removal of such obstructions.

The Court observed a "pre-dated" absurdity in the petitioners' filings, noting that the petitioners sought to rely on representations dated 30.07.2026, even though the court was hearing the matter on 29.07.2026 and the petitions were filed a week earlier.

Despite this anomaly, the Court acknowledged the statutory requirement under Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act that representations, if submitted, must be considered.

Since the petitioners admitted to occupying space abutting the highways with movable items, the Court determined that the respondents possessed the legal authority to remove such obstructions.

To balance administrative efficiency with due process, the Court treated the "future-dated" representations as fresh submissions and established a strict three-day timeline for their consideration.

The Court held that the representations dated 30.07.2026 be treated as fresh and directed the respondents to consider them between 31.07.2026 and 02.08.2026. The respondents were ordered to pass final orders by 03.08.2026 and were permitted to proceed with legal action/eviction only from 04.08.2026 onwards.

All connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without costs.