Show cause notices under Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act for encroachment removal are not liable to be quashed.

The Petitioner, a trader, challenged show cause notices issued by the Executive Officer of Naravari Kuppam Town Panchayat (4th Respondent) and the Tahsildar (3rd Respondent) on 15.02.2025 and 17.02.2025 for the removal of encroachments.

The authorities initiated these actions following a local survey prompted by complaints from other traders regarding obstructions.

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the notices, alleging a lack of opportunity to be heard and seeking a direction to allow the continuation of his business.

1. Whether the show cause notices issued for the removal of encroachments violated the principles of natural justice and the statutory procedure mandated under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act.

2. Whether an encroacher has a legal right to continue business on encroached land to the detriment of other traders.

The Court primarily applied Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, which prescribes the procedure for the removal of encroachments, including the issuance of notices and consideration of representations.

The Court also relied on the legal principle that hawking and vending must be regulated within zones specifically earmarked by the competent Committee under the provisions of the relevant Act, emphasizing that encroachment causing obstruction to others is legally impermissible.

The Court examined the impugned notices and found that they were not final orders but show cause notices.

The notices explicitly provided the Petitioner with an alternative to either vacate the premises or submit an explanation with supporting documents.

The Court reasoned that this mechanism satisfies the requirements of Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, as it grants the Petitioner an opportunity to prove his claim before a final decision is made.

Regarding the Petitioner’s right to do business, the Court distinguished between lawful street vending and unauthorized encroachment; it held that while the Petitioner can apply for a license in a designated "vending zone," he cannot claim a right to occupy public spaces that obstruct other traders or the general public.

It directed the Petitioner to submit a representation/explanation to the authorities within ten days of receiving the order.

The Court ordered the Respondents to consider such representation, take a final decision in accordance with the law, and conclude the eviction proceedings within twelve weeks.

It was clarified that the Petitioner remains at liberty to apply for permission to operate within a legally designated vending zone.