Dismissed

K.M.G.Hasan Abdul Cader v. the Commissioner

Madras HC22 Jan 2026WP/1290/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ for temporary unsealing of premises to remove stock-in-trade. Court dismissed the petition with costs due to deliberate suppression of a material fact that a prior order granting ten days to remove belongings had already been passed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000 payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within one month.

K.M.G.Hasan Abdul Cader Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No.1290 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,

¶6

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶9

WP No.1290 of 2026

¶10

K.M.G.Hasan Abdul Cader .. Petitioner

¶11

-vs-

¶12

The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai 600 001.

¶13

The Executive Engineer, Zone V, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.9, Chidambaram 7^th Street, Basin Bridge, Chennai 600 021.

¶14

The Assistant Engineer, Zone V, Division 56, Unit 13, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.9, Chidambaram, 7^th Street, Basin Bridge, Chennai 600 021.

¶15

The Assistant Executive Engineer Unit 13, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.9, Chidambaram 7^th Street, Basin Bridge, Chennai 600 021. .. Respondents

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

WP No.1290 of 2026

¶19

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to temporarily unseal the third floor premises bearing Door No.107/52, New Street, Mannady, Muthialpet, Chennai 600 001, for a period of 48 hours after due notice to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to remove his stock-in-trade and business materials pertaining to “HASAN BAG WORKS” without prejudice to the pending statutory appeal.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Suriyasankar For Respondents : Mr.S.Gopinathan Stdg. Counsel * * * * *

¶21

ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

In response to the prayer seeking removal of lock and seal for

¶24

some time so as to take away the personal belongings during the pendency of the revision petition before the revisional authority, learned State counsel brings to the notice of this Court that earlier, on 28.08.2025, an order was passed by the revisional authority granting ten days time to remove the belongings by de-sealing the third floor.

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

WP No.1290 of 2026

¶28

The petitioner has conveniently suppressed this fact while

¶29

filing this writ petition and sought to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction.

¶30

Leaving it open for the petitioner to work out his remedy in the pending revision, this petition is liable to be dismissed for suppression of a material fact and is, accordingly, dismissed, with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, within one month.

¶31

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 22.01.2026

¶32

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶33

sra

¶34

Page 3 of 4

¶35

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

¶36

WP No.1290 of 2026

¶37

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

¶38

(sra)

¶39

¶40

The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai 600 001.

¶41

The Executive Engineer, Zone V, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.9, Chidambaram 7^th Street, Basin Bridge, Chennai 600 021.

¶42

The Assistant Engineer, Zone V, Division 56, Unit 13, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.9, Chidambaram, 7^th Street, Basin Bridge, Chennai 600 021.

¶43

The Assistant Executive Engineer Unit 13, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.9, Chidambaram 7^th Street, Basin Bridge, Chennai 600 021. WP No.1290 of 2026

¶44

22.01.2026

¶45

Page 4 of 4

¶46

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

K.M.G.Hasan Abdul Cader v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.G.Hasan Abdul Cader v. the Commissioner

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

The Commissioner Vs Kannammal Educational Trust

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Vs C.Velusamy

The Managing Director Vs Y.Sudhakar

Phoenix and Co., Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M/S. Bloom Life Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Chairperson

G.Devarajan Vs The Principal Secretary