Dismissed¶22

Habeeb Syed Mohamed Mukrim v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC29 Jan 2026WP/2329/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; WP No. 2329 of 2026; V. Lakshminarayanan J.; 29-01-2026; Article 226; kiosk/bunk on sidewalk in front of petitioner's property; Khader Nawaz Khan Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai; Greater Chennai Corporation removed kiosk after filing; relief infructuous; writ petition dismissed; connected WMP No. 2585 of 2026 closed; no costs; no precedent discussed.

What did the court decide?

The relief claimed in the writ petition has been rendered infructuous because the Corporation of Chennai removed the kiosk placed in front of the petitioner's property soon after the writ petition was filed. ¶21

Habeeb Syed Mohamed Mukrim Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 2329 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 29-01-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

WP No. 2329 of 2026 and WMP No. 2585 of 2026

¶7

Habeeb Syed Mohamed Mukrim

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶11

Greater Chennai Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Rippon building, Chennai-600 003.

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

Prayer This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondents to remove the Kiosk placed in front of petitioners property in New No.10, Old Door No.29, Khader Nawaz Khan Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006 and further forbearing the respondents from not to construct or erect or install or place new kiosks on the sidewalk or in front or adjoining the petitioner’s property in New No.10, Old Door No.29, Khader Nawaz Khan Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006 installing.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Ms.Z.Rifa Fathima for M/s.G.Mohammed Aseef For Respondent(s): Dr.T.Seenivasan, SGP (R1) Mr.E.C.Ramesh (R2)

¶15

__________ Page1 of 2

¶16

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

¶17

WP No. 2329 of 2026

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶20

Maya

¶21

Ms.Rifa Fathima reports that soon after the writ petition was filed, the Corporation of Chennai has removed the Kiosk placed in front of the petitioner’s property. Hence, the relief that the petitioner claims in this writ petition has been rendered infructuous.

¶22

Recording the statement that the bunks have been removed, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶23

29-01-2026

¶24

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

1/2

Maya

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶29

Greater Chennai Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Rippon building, Chennai-600 003.

¶30

WP No. 2329 of 2026

¶31

__________ Page2 of 2

¶32

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

Habeeb Syed Mohamed Mukrim v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Habeeb Syed Mohamed Mukrim v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

P.K.Mohamed Vs State of Tamilnadu

Koyambedu Periyar Kaaikari Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Minda Capital Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State Industries Promotion

N.Santhikumari Vs the Adc (Aide- de- camp)

Gurumurthy Engineering Enterprises Vs The Commissioner

Ramu Pillai Vs Nagesh