Madras HC Directs CMDA To Complete Demolition Process For Locked Apartment Building

The Association filed a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of the High Court’s order dated 1 April 2025 in W.P. No. 729 of 2025.

At the hearing, the Association submitted that CMDA had issued a lock-and-seal notice and the building had been locked.

CMDA’s Standing Counsel stated that the authority would initiate action to demolish the unauthorised construction as expeditiously as possible.

In a connected miscellaneous petition, a third party sought leave to file a review petition against the order in W.P. No. 729 of 2025, but sought permission to withdraw that application.

The contempt petition invoked Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which provide for the High Court’s contempt jurisdiction and punishment for contempt.

The connected application invoked Article 226 of the Constitution to seek leave to file a review petition.

The Court cited no precedents and did not set out or apply a broader legal test; its order proceeded on the parties’ submissions and the applicant’s withdrawal request.

The Court recorded the Association’s submission that CMDA had issued a lock-and-seal notice and locked the building, and CMDA’s assurance that it would proceed with demolition of the unauthorised construction as expeditiously as possible.

On that basis, it directed CMDA to complete the exercise and permitted the Association to move the Court if CMDA failed to do so.

Separately, because the third-party applicant sought withdrawal of the leave application and an endorsement to that effect was made, the Court dismissed the application as withdrawn without deciding its merits.

The contempt petition was closed with a direction to CMDA to complete the demolition exercise; the Association was granted liberty to apply to the Court if CMDA failed to do so.