The Madras High Court has affirmed the state’s duty to protect public spaces from unauthorized occupation, dismissing a writ petition after authorities successfully removed illegal encroachments from V.O. Chidambaranar Market in Salem. The judgment underscores that judicial intervention is not meant to micromanage administrative action but to ensure compliance with constitutional obligations to maintain public infrastructure.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, J. Prosezhiyan, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents - District Collector, Salem Corporation, Assistant Commissioner, and private shop owners - to identify and remove all unauthorized shops, encroachments, obstructions, and illegal structures in and around V.O. Chidambaranar Market at Old Bus Stand, Salem. The petition was grounded in a representation dated 24.12.2024, which highlighted that corridors, lift entries, toilets, and public pathways within and adjacent to the market complex were being obstructed by temporary and permanent commercial structures, severely impeding public access and safety.
Key Facts
- The market complex is a public infrastructure facility managed by the Salem Corporation.
- Photographs submitted with the petition (dated 09.12.2025 at 1:42 p.m.) showed shops operating in corridors, blocking lift access, toilets, and main entrances.
- The encroachments included both permanent structures and temporary stalls, primarily along Valmiki Street, Valmiki Cross Street, and the immediate vicinity of the market building.
- The petitioner alleged that these encroachments violated municipal bylaws, public utility norms, and the right of citizens to unobstructed access to public spaces.
Procedural History
- 24.12.2024: Petitioner submitted formal representation to the Salem Corporation demanding removal of encroachments.
- 09.12.2025: Photographs documenting encroachments were taken and filed as evidence in the writ petition.
- 19.01.2026: The Court issued an interim direction requiring the authorities to monitor the market and file an affidavit regarding the status of encroachments.
- 26.11.2025: First eviction drive conducted by Salem Corporation with 35 police personnel and 15 municipal staff, targeting private shops in Valmiki Street and near lift/toilet entries.
- 14.02.2026: Salem Corporation Commissioner wrote to the Commissioner of Police requesting adequate police deployment for further eviction.
- 24.02.2026: Second eviction drive executed, removing:
- 14 shops in Valmiki Street
- 38 shops at the entrance inside the VOC Market
- 5 shops in Valmiki Street lane
- 8 shops encroaching near lift and toilet areas
- 23.03.2026: Compliance report filed by the Assistant Commissioner, accompanied by photographs of cleared areas.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that the persistent nature of encroachments demonstrated systemic failure by municipal authorities to enforce public space laws. The petitioner sought a binding direction for permanent removal and ongoing surveillance.
Respondents (Authorities): Submitted that the encroachments had been fully removed in two phases (26.11.2025 and 24.02.2026), supported by photographic evidence and police reports. They emphasized that the market area is now clear and that future allotments will be governed by transparent tender processes.
Respondents 4 - 17 (Private Shop Owners): Did not contest the removal but argued that any future allotment must be made through fair and lawful procedures.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to:
- Immediately remove all unauthorized structures and encroachments;
- Ensure the market complex remains free from future encroachments;
- Fix a timeline for compliance.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the authorities had fulfilled their constitutional and statutory duty to protect public spaces from encroachment, and whether the writ petition remained maintainable after substantial compliance had been demonstrated.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel contended that past failures to act rendered the writ necessary, and that mere removal without a binding monitoring mechanism would lead to recurrence. He cited M.C. Mehta v. Union of India to emphasize the state’s positive obligation to preserve public spaces as part of the right to life under Article 21.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Government Pleader and Standing Counsel submitted that the authorities had acted promptly and comprehensively, conducting two large-scale eviction drives with police support. They argued that the petition had become infructuous due to complete compliance, and that future prevention would be ensured through tender-based allotment and routine surveillance, not judicial oversight.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the compliance report filed by the Assistant Commissioner, along with the photographic evidence of the two eviction drives. It noted that the encroachments identified in the petition - particularly those blocking lift access, toilets, and corridors - had been entirely cleared by 24.02.2026. The Court observed that the authorities had not only acted but had done so with coordination between the Salem Corporation and the police, demonstrating administrative responsiveness.
"The photographs filed along with this writ petition suggests that, not only in the building of the market complex where shops have been allotted, however in the corridor of every floor, many number of street shops are permitted to run. Even the entry into the lift as well as toilets within the building of the market complex have been completely blocked by this kind of street marketing which is taking place in the corridors."
The Court held that the purpose of the writ petition - removal of encroachments - had been achieved. It rejected the notion that judicial intervention must continue indefinitely merely because encroachments had occurred in the past. The Court emphasized that mandamus is not a tool for perpetual supervision but for compelling specific, actionable duties.
The Court further clarified that any future allotment of vending spaces must follow statutory procedures and tender notifications, which do not confer vested rights. The authorities were directed to ensure that public pathways, parking areas, and common zones remain permanently free from encroachment.
The Verdict
The writ petition was disposed of as infructuous. The Court accepted the compliance report and closed the matter. The authorities are directed to continuously monitor the V.O. Chidambaranar Market area to ensure that public pathways, lift access, toilets, and parking zones remain unobstructed. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Enforcement of Public Space Rights Is Actionable
- Practitioners may file writ petitions under Article 226 to compel municipal bodies to remove encroachments from public markets, footpaths, and common areas.
- Photographic evidence and documented representations are critical to establish the nature and persistence of violations.
Compliance Renders Writs Infructuous
- Courts will not continue to entertain writs once the specific relief sought has been fully implemented.
- Authorities must document removals with photographs, police reports, and official affidavits to prove compliance.
Future Allotments Must Be Transparent
-
Any new vending zones must be allocated through public tenders, not ad hoc assignments.
-
Tender notifications do not create enforceable rights; they are merely procedural steps for future allocation.
-
Municipal officers must maintain surveillance logs and conduct periodic inspections to prevent recurrence.
-
Legal challenges to future encroachments must be filed promptly, as delayed petitions risk being dismissed as infructuous.
