Madras HC Declines To Order Demolition Of Salem Polymer Plant’s Allegedly Unauthorised Building, Leaves Approval Challenge Open

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a mandamus directing the fifth respondent to implement the third respondent’s order and demolish the sixth respondent’s alleged unauthorised construction

The court held

The Court disposed of the writ petition without granting the requested mandamus or ordering demolition.

It also directed

It held that the petitioner remained at liberty to challenge any building approval that violated the law, a statute, or applicable rules

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed

01Facts

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the fifth respondent, the Block Development Officer, to implement an order dated 4 December 2024 and demolish alleged unauthorised construction at the sixth respondent’s industrial premises in Karumapuram Village, Salem District

p. 1 · ¶ 1

The petitioner alleged that the construction posed a danger to employees and neighbouring buildings

p. 2 · ¶ 2

The third respondent’s counter affidavit recorded that the petitioner’s representation had been forwarded to the fifth respondent for inspection.

p. 3 · ¶ 3

The fifth respondent’s subsequent instructions stated that the petitioner’s allegations were false and that the buildings had approvals from competent authorities

p. 3 · ¶ 3–4

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner was entitled to a mandamus directing the fifth respondent to implement the third respondent’s order and demolish the sixth respondent’s alleged unauthorised construction

p. 2 · ¶ 1

ii.Whether the petitioner could obtain that relief where the fifth respondent reported that the allegations were false and the buildings had received competent-authority approvals

p. 3 · ¶ 4–5

03Law Applied

The Court considered the petition under its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, through which mandamus was sought

p. 1

It stated that a petitioner may challenge building approval granted by competent authorities if the approval contravenes law, a statute, or applicable rules

p. 3 · ¶ 5

04Reasoning

The Court noted the petitioner’s reliance on the third respondent’s counter affidavit, which referred to violations and unauthorised construction

p. 3 · ¶ 3

However, the State’s subsequent instructions, based on the Block Development Officer’s inspection, stated that the allegations were false and that the buildings had been approved by competent authorities

p. 3 · ¶ 4

In view of that account, the Court declined to examine the requested demolition relief further.

p. 3 · ¶ 5

It left open the petitioner’s option to challenge any approval that was contrary to law or applicable rules

p. 3 · ¶ 5