Disposed

R.Sathyan v. the Member Secretary

Madras HC23 Mar 2026WP/10725/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Registry mentioned a typographical error in the order dated 23.03.2026 dismissing a writ petition. The court corrected paragraph 5, replacing dismissal of an application under Rule 15 of the Madras High Court Writ Rules with an order permitting joint filing of the writ petition subject to payment of separate court-fee.

What did the court decide?

Typographical correction to order dated 23.03.2026; WMP No.11644 of 2026 allowed subject to payment of separate court-fee within two weeks; amended copy to be issued.

R.Sathyan Vs the Member Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.No.10725 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.04.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶7

W.P.No.10725 of 2026

¶8

R.Sathyan 2nd Floor, 9/4 Thandavarayan Street, Triplicane, Chennai 05 and another Vs The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natrajan Maligai, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai 08 and 4 others

Petitioner(s)

Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Abinesh Babu

¶13

For Respondent(s):Mrs.P.Veena Suresh Standing Counsel for R1

¶14

Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar Standing Counsel for R2

¶15

____________ Page 1 of 3_

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.10725 of 2026

¶18

Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman Government Advocate for R3 and R4

¶19

Mr.H.Adaikala Arokiaraj and Mrs.Auxilia Peter for R5

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶22

This matter has been listed today under the caption “ for being

¶23

mentioned ” at the instance of the Registry pointing out typographical error that crept in the order dated 23.03.2026.

¶24

It has been brought to our notice that, while dismissing the writ petition, a consequential order has been passed dismissing WMP No.11644 of 2026 which was filed under Rule 15 of Madras High Court Writ Rules, 2021 to permit the petitioners to join together and file a single writ petition.

¶25

In view of the above, delete the last sentence in paragraph 5 of the order, i.e. “ Consequently, the interim application is also dismissed ” and replace the same as “ WMP No.11644 of 2026 filed to permit the petitioners to file a single writ petition is ordered

¶26

____________ Page 2 of 3_

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.10725 of 2026

¶29

subject to payment of separate court-fee within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. ”

¶30

The Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction and issue amended order copy to the parties.

¶31

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 21.04.2026

¶32

bbr

¶33

____________ Page 3 of 3_

¶34

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

R.Sathyan v. the Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Sathyan v. the Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Parthasarathy Vs The Union of India

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs Jayakumar

V.K.Rajan Vs the Secretary to Government

M.Deivasigamani Vs the District Collector

Gowthaman S Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2

Srinivasan Vs the District Collector