Disposed¶33

N.Perumal, v. The Additional Principal Secretary

Madras HC2 Jun 2026WP/18646/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pattinapakkam Scheme; allotment of tenement; representation dated 10.01.2024 and 20.05.2025; Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board; writ of mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; direction to consider representation on own merits within eight weeks; hearing to rival claimants and stake holders; Madras High Court; Mohammed Shaffiq, J.; disposed of; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent (Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.01.2024 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other stakeholders including rival claimants, within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs. ¶33

N.Perumal, Vs The Additional Principal Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.05.2025 (and the earlier representation dated 10.01.2024) for allotment of a tenement in the Pattinapakkam Scheme.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

There shall be a direction to the second respondent (Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.01.2024 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders.

¶31

Key takeaways

The consideration shall be in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested persons/stake holders, including rival claimants, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶32
The Court expressly did not express any views on the merits of the representation; it remains open to the concerned respondent to consider the representation on its own merits and in accordance with law.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Mohammed Shaffiq, J.) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus to direct the Additional Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.05.2025 for allotment of a tenement in the Pattinapakkam Scheme. By consent, the matter was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. Recording the Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board (respondent 2) submitting that the representation dated 10.01.2024 would be considered within a time frame fixed by the Court, the Court directed respondent 2 to consider that representation on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other interested persons/stake holders including rival claimants, if any, within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order. The Court expressly left the merits open. Writ petition disposed of; no costs.

¶1

WP No. 18646 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

WP No. 18646 of 2026

¶7

N.Perumal, S/o.Nagan, No.6/25, Karunanidhi Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

The Additional Principal Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, St. George Fort, Chennai.

¶11

Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, Represented by the Managing Director, No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 005.

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.05.2025 for allotment of tenement in the pattinapakkam Scheme.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Sivakumar

¶15

For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Guruprasad, Govt. Counsel for R1

¶16

Mr.S.Karthikeyan, Standing Counsel for R2

¶17

Page1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

WP No. 18646 of 2026

¶20

ORDER

¶21

By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶22

The present writ petition has been filed to direct the 1st respondent

¶23

herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.05.2025 for allotment of tenement in the Pattinapakkam Scheme.

¶24

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed representations to the first and second respondents dated 10.01.2024 and 20.05.2025 respectively seeking allotment of tenement. However, the said representations ha v e not been considered so far by respondents 1 and 2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

¶25

At the outset, it was submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent that the representation dated 10.01.2024 submitted by the petitioner to the second respondent would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed within a time frame fixed by this Court, which was agreed to by the learned counsel for petitioner.

¶26

Page2 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

WP No. 18646 of 2026

¶29

5..

¶30

5.. In view of the same, taking into consideration the facts and

¶31

circumstances of the case and the limited relief sought for in this Writ Petition, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation dated 10.01.2024 of the petitioner, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders

¶32

in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested persons/stake holders, including rival claimants, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the representation and it is open to the concerned respondent to consider the representation on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶33

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶34

02-06-2026

¶35

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

¶36

GSK

¶37

__________ Page3 of 4

¶38

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