CHENNAI: The Madras High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging the sealing of two homestays in Ooty, stating that any grievance against the action must be placed before the special bench that had directed action against unauthorised establishments.
In January, the special bench constituted to deal with environmental and forest conservation matters had directed the authorities to initiate action against homestays functioning without requisite approvals in the Nilgiris district.
Following this, the municipal authorities conducted inspections of certain homestays in Ooty and, after finding that they were operating without valid licences, ordered the sealing of two establishments, Aakash Rooms and Cottages, and Golden Larch Residency.
Challenging the lock-and-seal orders issued by the Udhagamandalam Municipal Commissioner, the petitioners have filed writ petitions before the Madras High Court.
When the matters came up for hearing before the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, the petitioners' counsel submitted that the orders had been issued without prior notice or an opportunity of hearing.
The Nilgiris district administration submitted that the lock-and-seal orders were issued upon spot inspections conducted by the authorities, which revealed violations in the buildings, and also pursuant to the directions of the court.
It was further submitted that there was no illegality in issuing the lock-and-seal orders and, therefore, the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed.
After hearing both sides, the bench observed that the writ petitions essentially challenged the implementation of the directions issued by the special bench. The court held that if there is any violation or non-compliance of the directions issued by the special bench, it is for the petitioners to approach and plead before the that bench seeking intervention.
The court added that if any order was passed in these writ petitions, it would affect and interdict the proceedings which are being monitored periodically by the special bench. Stating this, the bench dismissed the writ petitions. However, it added that the order would not preclude the petitioners from approaching the special bench seeking intervention.