Disposed

Mr.B.Vijayabaskar v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC13 Nov 2025WP/42679/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Market fee-collection lessee sought refund of lease amount for 113 days lost to COVID-19 lockdown. Following a Supreme Court dismissal of SLPs against similar refunds and the Corporation's undertaking affidavit to refund, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed in terms of Commissioner's undertaking to refund lease amount for 113 days of lockdown; no order as to costs.

Mr.B.Vijayabaskar Vs the Secretary to Government — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 13-11-2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶5

WP No. 42679 of 2025

¶6

Mr.B.Vijayabaskar S/o.Balu, No.174, Bajanai Koil Street,Thiruppathikundram,Kancheepuram District.

¶7

...Petitioner(s)

¶8

¶9

The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

¶10

2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, No.78m Urban Administrative Building, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 028.

¶11

3.The District Collector, Collector Office, Kancheepuram District.

¶12

4.The Commissioner, Office of Kancheepuram City Municipal Corporation, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.

¶13

(R4- Suo-motu amended as per order dated 13.11.2025 in W.P.No.42679 of 2025)

¶14

...Respondent(s)

¶15

PRAYER

¶16

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 4^th respondent to consider and dispose of petitioner representation dated 01.09.2025 and to refund the lease amount for the remaining 113 days of the lease period within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶17

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

¶18

For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Padmanabhan For Respondent(s): Dr.T.Seenivasan Special Government Pleader (For R1 & R2) Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Faizal Additional Government Pleader (For R3)

¶19

Mr.R.A.Gopinath Standing Counsel (For R4)

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has wrongly shown 4^th respondent/The Commissioner, Office of Kanchipuram City Municipal Corporation as The Commissioner, Office of Kanchipuram Municipality. Obviously, a typographical error. The rank of the fourth respondent will be amended from "The Commissioner, Office of Kanchipuram Municipality" to "The Commissioner, Office of Kanchipuram City Municipal Corporation". The Registry is directed to carry out the amendments before issuance of the order.

¶22

The petitioner was a bidder for taking the right to collect fees in Rajaji Daily Market on license. He was successful in the bid. He was granted the contract for the period 2018–19 to 2020–21. The petitioner initially paid a sum of Rs. 34,70,000/-. Thereafter, he increased it by 5% and was granted an extension for a further period of one year. Unfortunately, during the course of execution of the contract, COVID-19 pandemic intervened. Hence, the petitioner could not collect for a period of 173 days. The closure of the market was on account of the directions given by the State and Central

¶23

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

¶24

Governments, directing lockdown to prevent the spread of the virus.

¶25

Finding that he could not exploit the contract for the entire period, he made a request for a refund of the lease amount. As there was no response, he came before this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 28 of 2021. The writ petition was ordered, directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondents to pass orders within a period of three months. Despite the same, no action has been forthcoming.

¶26

In the meantime, similarly placed persons had moved the Madurai Bench of this Court and obtained an order, directing refund of the amounts for the period of 113 days, the period covered by the lockdown. The Commissioner of the concerned Municipality felt aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge and preferred an appeal before the Division Bench. The Bench confirmed the order of the Single Judge and directed refund. Against the said order, the Commissioner preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court in SLP Nos. 7792 and 7793 of 2022. After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLPs on 12.02.2025. The Court granted three months time to the Commissioner to refund the amount.

¶27

The petitioner places reliance upon the said order and seeks a similar direction. When the matter came up for admission, Mr.R.A.Gopinath, took notice for the fourth respondent. He got instructions and reported to this Court that the Commissioner, Kanchipuram Corporation, will grant the refund for a period of 113 days, in line with the orders of the Supreme Court. As the statement of the counsel might not be fully binding

¶28

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

¶29

on the parties, I called upon Mr.Gopinath, to file an undertaking affidavit of the Commissioner.

¶30

Accordingly, when I took up the matter today, Mr.Gopinath, has filed the affidavit of the Commissioner, Kanchipuram City Municipal Corporation. The affidavit is scanned and extracted hereunder:

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

The undertaking given in paragraph No.3 is recorded.

¶34

The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the undertaking. However, there shall

¶35

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

¶36

13-11-2025

¶37

be no order as to costs.

¶38

kak

¶39

Note : Registry is directed to carry out the necessary amendments in the cause title .

¶40

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

¶41

1.The Secretary To Government Municipal Administration And Water Supply Department,Fort St.George,Chennai 600 009

¶42

2.The Commissioner Of Municipal Administration,

¶43

No.78m Urban Administrative Building, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 028

¶44

3.The District Collector Collector Office, Kancheepuram District

¶45

4.The Commissioner Office Of Kancheepuram City Municipal Corporation, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.

¶46

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

¶47

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶48

kak

¶49

WP No. 42679 of 2025

¶50

13.11.2025

¶51

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

Mr.B.Vijayabaskar v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.B.Vijayabaskar v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.N.Raja Gounder Vs R.K.Muthusami(Died)

Karuppannar and Another Vs Raju (Deceased)

The Vellore District Central Vs Mrs.N.Jothilakshmi

K.Kumari Vs the District Collector

S.M. Mohamed Hidayathullah Vs the District Collector

Zunaith Ansari Vs the Commissioner