Disposed¶31

Reji Divakaran v. the State Rep by

Madras HC23 Jun 2026WP/26781/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; WP No.26781 of 2025 and WMP No.30099 of 2025; Mohammed Shaffiq J.; 23-06-2026; Tamil Nadu Housing Board; car park allotment charge of Rs.1,00,000/- set aside; impugned proceedings dated 31.07.2024 in Letter No.AL-4/830/2016; Clause 22(a) of agreement – purchaser to make own vehicle parking arrangements; covered vs open car parking; Velachery self-financing scheme Flat M-2; Article 226 writ of Certiorari; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings dated 31.07.2024 passed in Letter No.AL-4/830/2016 set aside; writ petition stands disposed of with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (WMP No.30099 of 2025) closed. ¶31

Reji Divakaran Vs the State Rep by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned proceedings dated 31.07.2024 passed in Letter No.AL-4/830/2016 set aside; writ petition stands disposed of with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (WMP No.30099 of 2025) closed.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned proceedings dated 31.07.2024 of the 3rd respondent, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the purpose of allotment of a car park, were justified in view of the terms of the agreement. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 31.07.2024 is set aside and the writ petition stands disposed of; no costs ordered and the connected miscellaneous petition (WMP No.30099 of 2025) is closed.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

On a pointed question, learned counsel for the respondents was unable to point out any clause permitting them to charge an additional amount for the allotment of a car park; accordingly there was no contractual basis for the demand of Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution (High Court of Judicature at Madras, Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, decided 23-06-2026) by Reji Divakaran, an allottee of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (Flat M-2, Velachery self-financing scheme; allotment letter 17.05.2016; handing over order 05.12.2018), challenging proceedings dated 31.07.2024 in Letter No.AL-4/830/2016 of the 3rd respondent directing her to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for allotment of a car park. The petitioner relied on Clause 22(a) of the agreement, under which the Purchaser shall make his/her own arrangement to park vehicles, and on the initial allotment order expressly providing a covered car park subject to payment of an additional sum, contending that only open car parking had been allotted and the impugned order was contrary to the agreement. To a pointed question, learned counsel for the respondents was unable to point out any clause permitting an additional charge for car park allotment. The Court therefore set aside the impugned order, disposed of the writ petition with no costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.

¶1

WP No.26781 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ WP No.26781 of 2025 and WMP No.30099 of 2025

¶6

Reji Divakaran W/o.Mr Divakaran, Flat No.M-24, Mig Flats (SFS) TNHB 1st Main Road, TNHB Colony Velacherry, Chennai-600 042.

¶7

..Petitioner(s)

¶8

¶9

The State Rep by. The Principal Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St George, Chennai-600 009.

¶10

The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, E and C Market Road, Koyembedu, Chennai-600 107.

¶11

The Manager (Salem and Service) The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Besant Nagar, Zone No.48, Dr.Muthulakshmi Salai, Adyar, Chennai-600 020.

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 3rd respondent dated 31.07.2024 passed in Letter No.AL-4/830/2016 and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.S.Senthil Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Sidhartha Vishnu

¶15

__________ Page1 of 6

¶16

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

¶17

WP No.26781 of 2025

¶18

Counsel for Government (for R1 and R4) Mr.D.Veerasekaran Standing Counsel (for R2 & R3)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned proceedings dated 31.07.2024 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the purpose of allotment of a car park.

¶21

Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board developed a property in Velachery site. Petitioner applied for a plot in self-financing scheme in 12.12.2016 and petitioner was allotted Flat M-2 vide letter dated 17.05.2016. It is stated that petitioner was issued with a handing over order dated 05.12.2018. Petitioner would submit that in terms of Clause 22 of the agreement, petitioner can make his own arrangements to park the vehicles. The relevant portions of the agreement is extracted hereunder:

¶22

“22. The Purchaser shall be bound by the terms and conditions contemplated in the application form and the rules and regulations prescribed in the prospects of this scheme which will form part and parcel of this indenture. Further the purchaser shall also be bound by the directions being given by the vendor from time to time in the interest of the upkeep of the building and general management.

¶23

a) The Purchaser of the Flat shall make his/her own arrangement to park their vehicles (i.e.,) to park the cars, two wheelers in the space around the blocks of Flat.”

¶24

Page2 of 6

¶25

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

¶26

WP No.26781 of 2025

¶27

It is the case of the learned counsel for petitioner that the respondents are now insisting that the petitioner ought to make a payment of further sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Petitioner would also place reliance on the initial allotment order wherein it is expressly provided that covered car park would be allotted subject to payment of additional sum. Petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not been allotted covered car parking what is allotted is open car parking and therefore the impugned order is contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement.

¶28