Mandamus for demolition is unwarranted when authorities find no ongoing unauthorized construction.

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to demolish alleged unauthorised construction by respondents 8 and 9 at specified sites in Yanam, relying on proceedings of the Yanam Planning Authority.

The State submitted that no unauthorised construction by respondent 8 had been found.

As to respondent 9, the Planning Authority stated that she had filled and levelled the site without permission, and that a stop-work notice was issued on 11 February 2026; no further unauthorised work was observed.

The authorities had also informed the petitioner of their findings on 17 February 2026.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a mandamus directing the official respondents to demolish alleged unauthorised construction by respondents 8 and 9.

Whether further relief was warranted where the authorities reported no unauthorised construction by respondent 8 and no further work by respondent 9 after the stop-work notice.

The judgment does not identify or apply a specific statutory provision, precedent, or substantive planning-law test.

The petition was considered as a request for mandamus under Article 226, and the Court assessed the relief sought against the authorities’ account of their inspection and enforcement action.

The Court noted that the authorities had acted on the petitioner’s representation: they found no unauthorised construction by respondent 8 and, after issuing respondent 9 a notice directing her to stop work, observed no further unauthorised activity.

In light of those reported facts, the Court did not direct demolition.

It left the petitioner free to notify the authorities if further unauthorised construction occurred.

It made no order as to costs and closed the connected interim application.