S.Najeebdeen vs. The Principal Secretary TO

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to file the petition. The Court found that the petitioner was neither the pattadar (owner) nor had obtained any permission to erect even temporary structures (tin sheets) on the building in question. Therefore, the writ petition was considered bereft of any merits. The Court agreed with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the third respondent. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.

Facts

The petitioner, S. Najeebdeen, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents to remove the lock and seal placed by the 3rd respondent (Member Secretary/Commissioner, Kodaikanal Local Planning Authority) on his shop within the Indian Club Premises in Kodaikanal. The petitioner claimed to be a tenant operating a foam products business, having erected temporary structures using wood and tin sheets. He stated he had electricity connections and paid provisional tax and commercial taxes under GST. The 3rd respondent objected, asserting the petitioner was a tenant with no locus standi, and the action was taken due to unlawful encroachment. The respondent also noted the petitioner had unsealed the premises without permission after they were locked.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as a tenant, has the locus standi to file a writ petition challenging the action of the Kodaikanal Local Planning Authority in locking and sealing his shop premises, which are alleged to be an encroachment. (Question of law) Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that he was a lawful tenant operating a business, paying taxes including GST, and that his temporary structures did not constitute an unauthorized construction causing nuisance, thus the lock and seal should be removed. He sought an inquiry into his representation. Revenue/State's argument (3rd Respondent): The 3rd respondent argued that the petitioner lacked locus standi as he was merely a tenant and not the owner. The action was justified as the premises were identified as an unlawful encroachment. Furthermore, the petitioner had no right to unseal the premises after they were lawfully locked and sealed by the authority.