Facts
The petitioners sought a mandamus directing the Executive Engineer, Zone-V, Greater Chennai Corporation, to consider their joint representation dated 20 August 2026 for temporary removal of the lock and seal placed on Door No. 16, V.K. Pillai Street, Choolai, Chennai, so they could remove or rectify portions of the building that deviated from the sanctioned plan.
Source reference: p.2They stated that they accepted the Corporation’s authority to require removal of the deviations, undertook to carry out the rectification at their own cost, permit inspections, and refrain from further unauthorised work.
Source reference: p.3–5They had proposed completing the work within four months of removal of the seal.
Source reference: p.4Issues
1. Whether the lock and seal on the premises should be temporarily removed to enable the petitioners to rectify the deviations and remove unauthorised construction.
Source reference: p.2, p.52. Whether the petitioners should be granted time to complete the rectification and demolition, subject to inspection by the Corporation.
Source reference: p.5Law Applied
The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus.
Source reference: p.2The Court did not cite any statutory provision beyond Article 226, precedent, or specific substantive legal test. It acted on the petitioners’ express undertaking to remove the deviations and restore the building in accordance with the sanctioned plan, and issued directions to facilitate that work and enable verification by the authorities.
Source reference: p.3–5Reasoning
The petitioners did not seek regularisation or permission to continue unauthorised construction; they sought controlled access solely to remove the non-conforming portions and restore the building to the sanctioned plan.
Source reference: p.4–5In light of their stated willingness to comply and the limited purpose of the request, the Court directed removal of the lock and seal, while imposing a two-month deadline for rectification and directing the Corporation to inspect the building and verify compliance.
Source reference: p.5The Court’s two-month deadline was shorter than the four-month period proposed in the petitioners’ affidavit.
Source reference: p.4–5Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to remove the lock and seal within two days of receiving a copy of the order.
The petitioners were to commence the rectification work forthwith and complete it within two months, demolishing the unauthorised construction and restoring the building in accordance with the sanctioned plan.
Source reference: p.5–6The authorities were directed to inspect and ensure compliance within that period.
Source reference: p.5–6No costs were awarded.
Source reference: p.5–6Original Court PDF
POOJARANIvsTHE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
