Dismissed¶75

D.Jaikumar, v. Regional Director of Municipal Administration

Madras HC1 Apr 2026WA/2937/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.A.No.2937 of 2025 batch; Madras High Court Division Bench; Clause 15 Letters Patent writ appeals dismissed 01.04.2026; Coonoor Municipal Market demolition and reconstruction; notice dated 12.6.2025; temporary shop allotment before vacation; Building Structural Stability Report dilapidated building; expert opinion cannot be lightly disregarded; Advocate Commissioner report; Rs.41.50 crores Government allotment; work order completion two years from 06.11.2024; fresh licence after expiry; no order as to costs; connected interim applications closed.

What did the court decide?

No error is found in the order passed by the learned Single Judge; the writ appeals are dismissed. ¶75

D.Jaikumar, Vs Regional Director of Municipal Administration — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶75

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23317 of 2025, disposing of the writ petitions of the Coonoor Municipal Market shopkeepers with directions for temporary-shop allotment and vacation, deserved to be set aside. +2 more

¶61

Court's answer

No error is found in the order passed by the learned Single Judge; the writ appeals are dismissed.

¶75

Ratio / Principle

The expert opinion in the Building Structural Stability Report - that the market building is dilapidated and, considering its age and condition, has to be demolished as proper evacuation would not be possible in an emergency - cannot be lightly disregarded by the court.

¶74

Key takeaways

As per the conditions laid down in paragraph (9) of the learned Single Judge's order, the appellants cannot be displaced without issuance of an allotment order for temporary shops; vacation and handover of vacant possession follow only upon such allotment, and the appellants remain free to apply for fresh licences after expiry of the licence period.ratio¶73
The learned Single Judge had categorically stated that the appellants did not dispute that the market complex needs immediate demolition and reconstruction, which underpins this Court's conclusion that the order calls for no interference.ratio¶69

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Batch of writ appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court (Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari delivering the common judgment, with Justice G. Arul Murugan) dismissed. The appeals challenged the learned Single Judge's order dated 26.08.2025 in W.P.No.23317 of 2025, whereby shopkeepers of the Coonoor Municipal Market, The Nilgiris, were directed to take allotment of temporary shops within two weeks, vacate the market complex within one week thereafter and hand over vacant possession to facilitate demolition and reconstruction of the market under a work order stipulating completion within two years from 06.11.2024, pursuant to a Government of Tamil Nadu allotment of Rs.41.50 crores. Holdings: (i) the appellants, who did not dispute the need for immediate demolition and reconstruction, could not obtain relief through belated objections; (ii) the expert Building Structural Stability Report recording the building as dilapidated - evacuation being impossible in an emergency - could not be lightly disregarded by the court; and (iii) the appellants could not be displaced without an allotment order for temporary shops, with liberty to apply for fresh licences after expiry of the licence period. Finding no error in the Single Judge's order, the Bench dismissed the writ appeals with no order as to costs and closed the connected interim applications.

¶1

W.A.No.2937 of 2025 and batch cases

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.04.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶7

WA 2830,	No s .2937, 2928, 2929, 3472, 3 2834, 2868, 2872, 3374, 3113,	109, 3111, 3138, 3033, 3035, 3356, 3363, 3364, 3368, 3357,
3466,	3467, 3379, 3114, 3115, 2835,	2864, 3358, 2871, 2935, 3108,
2931, 3377,	2936, 3375, 3376, 2924, 3000, 3470, 3370, 3372, 2981, 2990, 3355, 2829, 3106, 3091, 3092 and	3001, 3002, 3003, 3004, 3031, 2926, 3361, 3360, 3373, 3149, , 3366 and 3367 of 2025

¶8

CMP N os .27404, 27487, 28307, 28310, 29967 24169, 24186, 24227, 29871, 29874, 29929,	, 27465, 23697, 23775, 29935, 29962, 28328,
27356, 27388, 27394, 23700, 22967, 22963,	22952, 22945, 23776,
23195, 24537, 25194, 29830, 29831, 30031,	25335, 23774, 24237,
24241, 25193, 27360, 29829, 27442, 23203,	24532, 25276, 25591,
23217, 27409, 27419, 25291, 25324, 27399,	25332, 27371, 27374,
27437, 27468, 27472, 27484, 28334, 23214, 30030, 30027, 29972, 23703, 24119, 23709,	27384, 25490, 29869, 24076, 25337, 27395,
24529, 25342, 29965, 30059 and 2	3693 of 2025

¶9

W.P.No.2937 of 2025:

¶10

D.Jaikumar, S/o.Dhoddiah Chettiar, 41/76, TDK Road, Coonoor, The Nilgiris.

¶11

Appellant(s)

¶12

¶13

_______________ Page 1 of 11_

¶14

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

¶15

W.A.No.2937 of 2025 and batch cases

¶16

The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Tirupur.

¶17

The Commissioner, Coonoor Municipality, The Nilgiris.

¶18

Respondent(s)

¶19

PRAYER in W.A.No.2937 of 2025: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23317 of 2025.

¶20

and batch cases

¶21

For Appellant(s) Mr.Karthik Ranganathan in all Writ Appeals:

¶22

For Respondent(s) Mr. Abishek Moorthy in all Writ Appeals: Standing Counsel for R1

¶23

Mr. M.Suresh Kumar Additional Advocate General assisted by Dr. T.Seenivasan Special Government Pleader (Forests) for R2

¶24

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶25

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶26

Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these

¶27

batch of writ appeals, the same have been heard analogously and

¶28

are being decided by this common judgment.

¶29

_______________ Page 2 of 11_

¶30

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

¶31

W.A.No.2937 of 2025 and batch cases

¶32

The appellants herein filed the writ petitions seeking

¶33

issuance of a certiorarified mandamus to quash the notice dated 12.6.2025 issued by the second respondent and to forbear the respondents from in any manner evicting or disturbing the appellants from carrying on business in various shops in the Coonoor Municipal Market, The Nilgiris.

¶34

After hearing learned counsel on either side, the learned

¶35

Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions with the following observations and directions:

¶36

“7. It is undisputed that the Government of Tamil Nadu has allotted Rs.41.50 crores for the construction of new daily market shopping complex for the Coonoor Municipality. A tender process was conducted, contractor was identified and work order was also issued stipulating the completion period as within two years from 06.11.2024 for demolition and reconstruction of the market complex. The petitioners do not dispute that the market complex needs immediate demolition and reconstruction. These writ petitions were filed solely on the ground

¶37

Page 3 of 11

¶38

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

¶39

W.A.No.2937 of 2025 and batch cases

¶40

that sufficient time was not granted to the petitioners for relocation and that the temporary place identified for relocation did not have basic amenities. It was only to address the petitioners grievance an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and report was sought for. It is the respondent's specific case that all the deficiencies pointed out by the learned Advocate Commissioner were rectified and the incomplete works were also completed.

¶41

8. In my view, once the petitioners admit that the Coonoor market complex needs demolition and reconstruction it would be in nobody's interest to delay the project of demolition and reconstruction of the market complex. As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader if, the work is not commenced immediately, the monsoon which is round the corner would set in and the project would be further delayed resulting in escalation of project costs.

¶42

9. In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to issue the following directions:-

¶43

Page 4 of 11

¶44

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

¶45

W.A.No.2937 of 2025 and batch cases

¶46

(1)The respondents shall issue the allotment order for the temporary shops to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47

(2)On receipt of the allotment order for the temporary shops, the petitioners shall vacate the shops from the market complex within a period of one week thereafter and hand over the vacant possession to the respondents.

¶48

(3)The petitioners are permitted to apply for fresh license depending on the expiry of license period.

¶49

(4)The respondents shall ensure that all concerns of the petitioners regarding basic amenities in the temporary location are addressed promptly.

¶50

(5)The respondents are directed to allot the temporary shops to the petitioners on the basis of the nature of business conducted by them and other lessees.

¶51

(6)The petitioners are directed to pay the additional remuneration of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the learned Advocate Commissioner.”

¶52

Assailing the aforesaid order dated 26.8.2025, the unsuccessful petitioners have filed these intra-court appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

¶53

Page 5 of 11

¶54

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

¶55

W.A.No.2937 of 2025 and batch cases

¶56

5.1. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge did not consider the specific prayer of the appellants in the writ petition that there was no necessity to demolish the buildings, as they were strong. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge also did not consider the fact that no sufficient time was granted to the appellants for relocation and that the temporary place identified for relocation did not have the basic amenities.

¶57

5.2. The next plank of the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants is that the procedure for demolition and reconstruction of a building which is occupied, as held in a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court and this court is that a notice has to be issued to the occupants; inspection has to be conducted to assess the stability of the building; the stability report has to be shared with the occupants; eviction notice has to be issued; and thereafter demolition is to take place. However, the respondents have straightaway issued the impugned notice directing eviction, in violation of the aforesaid procedure and the learned Single Judge

¶58

_______________ Page 6 of 11_

¶59

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

¶60

W.A.No.2937 of 2025 and batch cases

¶61

has not considered the same. He, therefore, pleaded that the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.

¶62

6.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submit that the Government of Tamil Nadu had already allotted Rs.41.50 crore for construction of new daily market shopping complex for the Coonoor Municipality. The tenders were invited, contractor was identified and work order was also issued stipulating the completion period as within two years from 6.11.2024. The appellants have failed to challenge the tender process and also not impleaded the tenderer as one of the respondents in the writ petitions. In the absence of challenge to the tender process and in view of the nonjoinder of necessary party, the learned Single was right in disposing of the writ petitions with the directions, referred supra.

¶63

6.2. It is further submitted that, in fact, the appellants have not disputed that the market complex needs immediate demolition and reconstructions. The writ petitions were filed solely on the ground that sufficient time was not granted for the appellants for relocation and the temporary place identified does not have basic

¶64

Page 7 of 11

¶65

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

¶66

W.A.No.2937 of 2025 and batch cases

¶67

amenities. With a view to address the aforesaid grievance of the petitioners, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and report was sought. The defects pointed out in the report of the Advocate Commissioner were rectified and incomplete works were also completed. Once the appellants admitted that the market complex needs demolition and reconstruction, they cannot now take a somersault and state that the building was in a good condition or that sufficient time for relocation was not granted. Once there is an admission on the part of the appellants, no further relief could have been granted by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference. These appeals, being devoid of merits, are liable to be dismissed.

¶68

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶69

The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petitions, has categorically stated that the appellants did not dispute that the market complex needs immediate demolition and

¶70

_______________ Page 8 of 11_

¶71

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

¶72

W.A.No.2937 of 2025 and batch cases

¶73

reconstruction. Moreover, as per the conditions laid down in paragraph (9) of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants cannot be displaced without issuing any allotment order for the temporary shops. It is only after issuing allotment order for temporary shops, the appellants can be made to vacate the shops from the market complex and handover the vacant possession. The learned Single Judge has also permitted the appellants to apply for fresh license, after the expiry of the license period.

¶74

Moreover, the Building Structural Stability Report issued by the experts clearly states that the building is in a dilapidated condition and considering the age of the building and its condition, the same has to be demolished, as in case of any emergency, proper evacuation is not possible. Such expert opinion cannot be lightly disregarded by the court.

¶75

In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Writ appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

¶76

_______________ Page 9 of 11_

¶77

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

¶78

W.A.No.2937 of 2025 and batch cases

¶79

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected

¶80

interim applications stand closed.

¶81

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 01.04.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sasi

¶82

To:

¶83

The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Tirupur.

¶84

The Commissioner, Coonoor Municipality, The Nilgiris.

¶85

_______________ Page 10 of 11_

¶86

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

¶87

W.A.No.2937 of 2025 and batch cases

¶88

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

¶89

(sasi)

¶90

W.A.No.2937 of 2025 and batch cases

¶91

01.04.2026

¶92

_______________ Page 11 of 11_

¶93

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 26.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23317 of 2025 disposing of the shopkeepers' writ petitions with directions: allotment of temporary shops within two weeks; vacation of the market complex within one week thereafter with handover of vacant possession; liberty to apply for fresh licences; prompt addressing of amenity concerns; allotment according to nature of business; and payment of Rs.50,000/- to the Advocate Commissioner.¶19
Learned Single Judge, High Court of Judicature at Madras · 26.08.2025
Prior proceeding
The appellants filed writ petitions seeking a certiorarified mandamus to quash the notice dated 12.6.2025 issued by the second respondent.¶33
Prior proceeding
The writ petitions also sought restraint upon the respondents from evicting or disturbing the appellants from carrying on business in various shops in the Coonoor Municipal Market, The Nilgiris.¶33
Prior proceeding
The Government of Tamil Nadu had allotted Rs.41.50 crores for construction of a new daily market shopping complex for the Coonoor Municipality, as recorded by the learned Single Judge.¶36
Prior proceeding
A tender process was conducted, a contractor identified, and a work order issued stipulating completion within two years from 06.11.2024 for demolition and reconstruction of the market complex.¶36
Prior proceeding
To address the petitioners' relocation grievances, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and a report was sought.¶40
Prior proceeding
The respondents asserted that all deficiencies pointed out by the learned Advocate Commissioner were rectified and the incomplete works completed.¶40
Prior proceeding
After hearing learned counsel on either side, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions with observations and directions.¶35
Prior proceeding
Direction (1) in the disposed writ petitions: the respondents to issue allotment orders for temporary shops to the petitioners within two weeks of receipt of the order.¶46
Prior proceeding
Direction (2): the petitioners to vacate the market-complex shops within one week after receipt of the allotment order and hand over vacant possession to the respondents.¶47
Prior proceeding
The unsuccessful petitioners filed these intra-court appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent assailing the order dated 26.8.2025.¶52

D.Jaikumar, v. Regional Director of Municipal Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Jaikumar, v. Regional Director of Municipal Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janaki Vs Krishnamani

Sundaram Vs State Rep by

Das @ Pragalathan Vs Rep by

Loganathan Palanisamy Vs The Director of School Education

M.Manoharan Vs the District Collector

P.Manikkasamy Vs The District Collector