Dismissed

V.Chandra v. the Commissioner

Madras HC6 Sept 2024WP/2785/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a physically challenged widow, challenged the rejection of her application for a house under the Valleswaran Kovil Thottam Scheme. The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding the impugned order was sustainable and directed the respondents to hand over possession of the Perumbakkam allotment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Respondents directed to hand over possession of the allotted tenement in Perumbakkam within two weeks.

V.Chandra Vs the Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.2785 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.09.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.2785 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.3044 & 27376 of 2024

V.Chandra

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Department of Welfare differentially abled, Kamarajar Salai,

¶11

Chennai – 600 005.

¶12

2.The Secretary,

¶13

Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai – 600 005.

¶14

3.The Executive Engineer, Division – 7, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records and quash the proceedings vide No.Na.Ka.G7/8003/2023 dated 10.01.2024 passed by the 2^nd respondent and further, directing the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to allotment of the house in the project of division-7 of Valleeswaran Kovil Thottam Scheme Mylapore carried by the 3^rd

¶16

Page No.1 of 8

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.No.2785 of 2024

¶19

respondent as per the G.O.No.24 dated 12.08.2022.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthamizhselvakumar

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan Special Government Pleader [R1] *****

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records and quash the proceedings vide No.Na.Ka.G7/8003/2023 dated 10.01.2024 passed by the 2^nd respondent and further, directing the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to allotment of the house in the project of division-7 of Valleeswaran Kovil Thottam Scheme Mylapore carried by the 3^rd respondent as per the G.O.No.24 dated 12.08.2022.

¶24

Though the petitioner filed W.M.P.No.28376 of 2024 seeking

¶25

to fix an early date for hearing of the present writ petition, she has consented for the disposal of the main writ petition itself.

¶26

The case of the petitioner is that, she had 100% impairment as

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

Page No.2 of 8

¶29

W.P.No.2785 of 2024

¶30

differentially abled personality and in this regard, the Government of Tamil Nadu also issued the disability certificate in form No.IV vide Certificate No.SRPC/HI/12 respectively. Her husband namely Veerapathiran had suffered T.B. Disease and alcoholic addict and he had committed suicide on 04.06.2019 at Kancheepuram. After the death of her husband, the petitioner has no other source to maintain herself. She had two sons and one was married and settled somewhere else and the younger one is a student and she was residing in the petition mentioned address on rental basis and she is a homemaker at present. She came to know that there is a project carried out by the 2 nd respondent namely Valleshwaran Kovil Thottam Scheme at Mylapore limit as base 1 and 2 under the scheme of PMAY-AHP. There are 630 houses are constructed and right now, there are 62 houses are additionally constructed and vacant in possession. After coming to know about the scheme, on behalf of the petitioner, her son Murugesh has given representation to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board dated 21.10.2020 requesting allotment of house in the said project, however, no action has been taken by the said Slum Clearance Board. In the meantime, the 1 st respondent passed the G.O.No.24 dated 12.08.2022 stating that there is a 5% reservation for the differentially abled person in the allotment of house in the project carried

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

Page No.3 of 8

¶33

W.P.No.2785 of 2024

¶34

by the 2 nd respondent. In view of the said G.O., the petitioner son had given a representation to the 1 st respondent dated 21.09.2022 requesting to allotment of house in the said project and the same was considered by

¶35

the Government and forwarded the proceedings vide Letter No.3599108/UHD-1(1)/2022-1 dated 25.11.2022 to the 2 nd respondent for consideration and allotment of house, if any available. Since the 2 nd respondent has not taken any action, the petitioner has filed a writ petition before this court in W.P.No.33484 of 2023 and this court by its order 29.11.2023, allowed the writ petition, directing the 2 nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.11.2023 and pass orders in accordance with law, pursuant to which, the petitioner was allotted to house site at Perumbakkam, however, Perumbakkam is far away from Mylapore and the petitioner and her son were employed in the Mylapore area. Thereby, they made another representation for allotment of house in Valleswaran Kovil Thottam scheme, however the said representation was rejected by the 2 nd respondent vide impugned order dated 10.01.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶36

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is not occupied in buckingham canal, however the

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

Page No.4 of 8

¶39

W.P.No.2785 of 2024

¶40

petitioner is a resident of Mandaveli area on rental basis and the petitioner and her son are downtrodden people. Since the petitioner is a physically challenged person, on her behalf, her son made a representation for allotment of tenament in favour of the petitioner on the disability quota, however the allotment was made in the Perumbakkam scheme instead of allotment in the Mylapore scheme. Accordingly, he prays for appropraite orders.

¶41

5. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1 st respondent submitted that for the persons who are occupied in the buckingham canal, in order to give alternative accommodation, tenaments were constructed in Mandaveli and Mylapore area and the remaining persons were given allotment to the tenaments in the Valleswaran Kovil thottam. Already the persons who are occupied in the Buckingham Canal and other water bodies were given allotment, however, the petitioner is not in occupation of the buckingham canal area and the petitioner and her son are not affected person. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a physically challenged person, the allotment was made in Perumbakkam area. Further, the petitioner's native in Kancheepuram and Perumbakkam is nearer to Tambaram. Hence, claim made by the petitioner for allotment

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

Page No.5 of 8

¶44

W.P.No.2785 of 2024

¶45

of the tenament in the Valleeswaran Kovil Thottam is not sustainable. By rightly appreciating the issue, the 2 nd respondent has passed the impugned order, which cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶46

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1 st respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶47

It is seen from the records that the petitioner is a 100% hearing

¶48

impaired individual and she is a widow and has no source of income to maintain herself. It is claimed by the petitioner that her sons are working in Mylapore and her close relatives are in the Mylapore circle and there is a practical difficulty in view of the allotment of house in the Housing Board at Perumbakkam area, thereby she sought for allotment of house in Valleswaran Kovil Thottam. It is seen that the persons who were occupied in the buckingham canal were given allotment in the Mylapore and Mandaveli area and the remaining persons were given allotment in the Valleswaran Kovil Thottam Scheme. Since the petitioner does not belong to the buckingham canal area and the petitioner and her son were

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

Page No.6 of 8

¶51

W.P.No.2785 of 2024

¶52

not affected person, they were given allotment in the Perumbakkam area considering the fact that the petitioner is a physically challenged person. However, without accepting the same, the petitioner has again approached the 2^nd respondent, thereby, the 2^nd respondent has rejected the claim made by the petitioner by way of impugned order dated 10.01.2024, which is wholly sustainable and the same does not require any interference. Hence, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶53

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to hand over the possession of the tenament in Perumbakkam area to the petitioner, which was already allotted in her favour, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶54

06.09.2024

¶55

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No sp

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Page No.7 of 8

W.P.No.2785 of 2024

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

1.The Commissioner, Department of Welfare differentially abled, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai – 600 005.

¶63

2.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai – 600 005.

¶64

3.The Executive Engineer, Division – 7, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶65

W.P.No.2785 of 2024

¶66

06.09.2024

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶68

Page No.8 of 8

V.Chandra v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Chandra v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Ziyaullah Vs Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

G.Umapathy Vs D.Ramesh @Boopathy

Mohamed Thameem Vs Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

Pushpavalli Vs The Joint Commissioner

Govindasami Pillai Vs Reserve Bank of India

Manavala Bashyam Vs the Secretary