Writ petitions challenging show-cause notices are generally not maintainable absent jurisdictional defects or mala fides.

The petitioners, operators or proprietors of homestays in Valparai, challenged show-cause notices issued by the Valparai Municipality under Section 145 concerning alleged unauthorised construction of non-residential buildings or illegal use of buildings.

They sought to quash the notices, contending that they did not identify the alleged construction or use with sufficient detail, and requested fresh notices and a hearing before further action.

The Court heard the connected writ petitions together.

1. Whether writ petitions challenging the Municipality’s show-cause notices were maintainable at that stage.

2. Whether the notices were liable to be quashed because they allegedly lacked particulars of the unauthorised construction or illegal use.

A writ petition challenging a show-cause notice is generally not maintainable unless the notice was issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction or is tainted by mala fides; the recipient should ordinarily respond to the notice, and disputed facts are not to be adjudicated by the High Court at that stage.

The Court referred to Section 145 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act in connection with the notices and to the statutory regime governing construction in hill stations: Chapter X-A of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 1992, including Sections 217-A to 217-O, and Rule 26(1) of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, which keeps the Tamil Nadu Hilly Areas Special Building Rules, 1981 and the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities (Hill Stations) Building Rules, 1993 in force.

The judgment refers to the Urban Local Bodies Act as the 1998 Act, amended in 2002, at paragraph 1, but refers to it as the 1995 Act at paragraph 6.

The Court held that the notices were preliminary requests for explanations and that the petitioners could submit relevant approvals, licences and other documents to establish the legality of the construction or use.

It rejected the contention that the notices were invalid for want of particulars, reasoning that the Municipality could assess the matter on a prima facie basis and consider the petitioners’ documents before deciding the issues on their merits.

Since the Municipality undertook to consider the explanations, conduct field inspections and proceed only thereafter in accordance with law, the Court found no basis to intervene at the show-cause stage.

It also emphasised the applicable regulatory framework for building activity in hill stations.

It permitted the petitioners to submit explanations with supporting documents within seven days of receiving the order and directed the Municipality to consider them before deciding how to address any building irregularities in accordance with law.