S.Sankari Vs The Additional Principal Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

S.Sankari Vs The Additional Principal Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.05.2025 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested party, within eight weeks from the date of uploading of the web copy without waiting for the receipt of the certified copy; the Court expressed no views on the merits; writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.05.2025 for allotment of a tenement in the Pattinapakkam Scheme.

Court's answer

First respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.05.2025 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested party, within a period of eight weeks from the date of uploading of the web copy without waiting for the receipt of the certified copy.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition stands disposed of, with no order as to costs.

Key takeaways

The Court expressly made clear that it has not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the case; the merits remain open for the first respondent's consideration.obiter¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Single Judge - Justice Mohammed Shaffiq), WP No.24797 of 2026, order dated 30-06-2026. Writ Petition under Article 226 seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Additional Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development (first respondent), to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.05.2025 for allotment of a tenement under the Pattinapakkam Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board (second respondent), the representation remaining pending after no tenement was allotted. Learned State Counsel undertook to consider the representation within a time frame to be fixed by the Court, agreed to by counsel for the petitioner. Held: first respondent directed to consider the representation on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested party, within eight weeks from uploading of the web copy without waiting for the certified copy; the Court expressly expressed no views on the merits. Writ petition disposed of; no order as to costs.

WP No.24797 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

WP No.24797 of 2026

S.Sankari

…Petitioner

Vs

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

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

..Respondent(s)

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing first respondent herein to consider representation of petitioner dated 28.05.2025 for allotment of tenement in the Pattinapakkam Scheme.

For Petitioner(s):	Mr.R.Sivakumar
For Respondent(s):	Mr.J.V.Sakthi Baalakrishnan for Government for R1
	Mr.G.Venkatesan for R2

Page1 of 4

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

WP No.24797 of 2026

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed to direct first respondent to consider representation of petitioner dated 28.05.2025 for allotment of tenement in the Pattinapakkam Scheme.

Petitioner applied for tenement in the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board/second respondent under Pattinampakkam Scheme. Since second respondent did not allot any tenement, petitioner made a representation dated 28.05.2025 to first respondent. The said representation is still pending.

At the outset, it was submitted by learned State Counsel for first respondent that they would consider petitioner’s representation dated 28.05.2025 and pass appropriate orders, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court, which was agreed to by learned counsel for petitioner.

4. In view thereof, there shall be a direction to first respondent, to consider petitioner’s representation dated 28.05.2025 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to petitioner, and any other interested party, within a period of eight weeks from the date of uploading of web copy without waiting for the receipt of certified copy . It is made clear that this Court has not

Page2 of 4

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

WP No.24797 of 2026

expressed any views with regard to the merits of the case.

5. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as

to costs.

30-06-2026

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

To 1.The Additional Principal Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, St.George, Chennai.

2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-5.

__________ Page3 of 4

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

WP No.24797 of 2026

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

MRN

WP No.24797 of 2023

30-06-2026

__________ Page4 of 4

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