Misquoting statutory provisions does not vitiate a show cause notice issued under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act.

Nine petitioners, residents of Melayyampettai Village, Thiruvannamalai District, challenged an eviction notice dated 27.04.2022 (Na.Ka.No. 11/2011) issued by the Executive Officer of the Kalambur Town Panchayat.

The petitioners contended that the notice was arbitrary, lacked a specific provision of law under which it was issued, and violated principles of natural justice.

The respondents maintained that the notice was issued to remove encroachments from public property/streets within the municipal limit.

1. Whether the failure to mention a specific statutory provision in an eviction notice vitiates the notice if the authority possesses the underlying power to issue it.

2. Whether the Executive Officer has the authority to remove structures encroaching on public streets and what procedural safeguards must be followed under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998.

The court primarily applied Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998.

Under Section 128(1)(b), the Commissioner is empowered to remove any permanent or temporary immovable structure encroaching upon streets, public places, or lands vested with the Municipality.

The rule dictates that a show cause notice must be issued allowing 7 days for the encroacher to either vacate or submit an explanation.

Furthermore, the court applied the principle that "wrong quoting or misquoting of provision" does not vitiate an order or notice if the power to issue it exists under another valid provision.

The Court noted that while the impugned notice did not explicitly cite a statute, the Additional Government Pleader clarified it was issued under the power vested by Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998.

The Court reason that the Executive Officer of the Town Panchayat is legally empowered to act against encroachments to resume public property.

To ensure the principles of natural justice were met, the Court harmonized the statutory requirement of a 7-day notice period with the facts of the case, determining that the petitioners should be granted a specific window (10 days) to submit their documents and explanations for consideration by the competent authority before any final enforcement action is taken.

The Court held that the petitioners are at liberty to submit an explanation with supporting documents within 10 days of the order.

The 4th respondent (Executive Officer) was directed to consider such representation, take a final decision, and proceed with enforcement action for removing encroachments and resuming public property within 12 weeks.

No costs were awarded.