Writ challenge to a Greater Chennai Corporation notice regarding regularised building plans was dismissed; the court declined interference as the petitioner failed to explain the delay of several months in challenging the April 2025 communication.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP No.48796 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.12.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
WP No.48796 of 2025 and WMP Nos.54486 and 54488 of 2025
A.Sahasranamam
.. Petitioner
-vs-
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the notice Z.O.VIII.C.No.2297/2025 dated 23.04.2025 by the 1st respondent and direct the 1st respondent not to insist on submission of regularised plan as petitioner’s building stands duly regularised prusuant to the Commissioner’s Regularisation Order dated 30.07.2001 bearing Page 1 of 4
1 st
WP No.48796 of 2025
Rev.Building Regularisation Permit No.215/2000 and further direct the 1st respondent to issue a copy of regularised plan as revised building regularisation permit No.215/2000 dated 30.07.2001 and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with or harass the petitioner or his wife with coercive or sealing action in respect of the said property, direct imposition of exemplary costs/punitive action against the 1st respondent for dereliction of duty, harassment of senior citizens and misuse of official power.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Suresh Kumar For Respondents : M/s.Aswini Devi Stdg. Counsel for RR 1 and 2
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Challenge to the communication dated 23.04.2025 is made on
the ground that the document dated 30.07.2001, a copy of which was sought by the authority from the petitioner, is already lying with the respondents.
the month of April. We fail to understand as to why the petitioner did
Page 2 of 4
WP No.48796 of 2025
order.
not challenge it. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order.
Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, the interim applications stand closed.
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 17.12.2025
Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sra
To
Page 3 of 4
WP No.48796 of 2025
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
(sra)
WP No.48796 of 2025
17.12.2025
Page 4 of 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition filed months after receiving the impugned notice, without explaining the delay, warrants interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A. Sahasranamam
The Executive Engineer, Zone VIII, Greater Chennai Corporation
The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
G. Arul Murugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
