Disposed¶30

M.Sathiyanthan v. the Managing Director

Madras HC27 Jul 2026WP/27473/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TASMAC; Managing Director; District Manager Kanchipuram North; M.Sathiyanthan; writ of mandamus; Article 226 of Constitution of India; rental arrears Rs.9,30,600/-; interest at 9% per annum; compensation Rs.5,00,000/-; structural damage to building; lease 2004; State policy closing liquor shops; vacated 30.05.2026; representation dated 12.06.2026; direction to consider representation on merits; four weeks; no order as to costs; Hemant Chandangoudar; Madras High Court; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.06.2026 on its own merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; no order as to costs. ¶30

M.Sathiyanthan Vs the Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.06.2026 claiming outstanding rental arrears of Rs.9,30,600/- with 9% interest and Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation/damages for structural damage to his building.

¶21

Court's answer

The second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.06.2026 on its own merits and in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Hemant Chandangoudar, J.), W.P. No. 27473 of 2026 (filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India): M.Sathiyanthan vs The Managing Director TASMAC and The District Manager TASMAC Ltd. Premises owned by the petitioner were leased to TASMAC in 2004 for running a State-owned retail liquor outlet on monthly rent; the lease was periodically extended and the respondents vacated on 30.05.2026 pursuant to the State policy decision to close liquor shops. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing payment of outstanding rental arrears of Rs.9,30,600/- with 9% interest and Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation/damages for structural damage to his building, through a representation dated 12.06.2026 that had not been considered. The Standing Counsel, on instructions, submitted that the representation would be considered on its merits. The Court directed the second respondent to consider the representation dated 12.06.2026 on its own merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; the writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs. No monetary award was made and no precedent was relied upon.

¶1

WP No. 27473 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WP No. 27473 of 2026

M.Sathiyanthan

..Petitioner

The Managing Director TASMAC Head Office, CMDA Tower-II, IV Floor Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008

¶11

The District Manager TASMAC Ltd., Kanchipuram North, Thirumazhisai, Chennai-600 123

¶12

..Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to pay the total outstanding rental arrears amounting to Rs.9,30,600/- along with interest of 9% from the date of default to date of realization forthwith and also a compensation/damages sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the structural damages caused to the petitioners building and to pass orders.

¶14

Page1 of 5

¶15

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

¶16

WP No. 27473 of 2026

¶17

For Petitioner: Mr.A.V. Arun

¶18

For Mr.R.Vintoh Kumar

¶19

For Respondents: Mr.K.Balakrishnan, Standing Counsel

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 12.06.2026. In the said representation, the petitioner has sought payment of rental arrears of Rs.9,30,600/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of default till the date of realisation, and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the alleged damage caused to his building.

¶22

The property belonging to the petitioner was leased to the respondents in the year 2004 for running a State-owned retail liquor outlet on payment of monthly rent. The lease was extended from time to time and the respondents continued to occupy the premises until 30.05.2026. Thereafter, pursuant to a policy decision taken by the State to close the liquor shops, the respondents vacated the premises.

¶23

According to the petitioner, the respondents have neither paid the arrears of rent nor compensated him for the damage allegedly caused to the building. Therefore, he submitted a representation dated 12.06.2026 seeking

¶24

Page2 of 5

¶25

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

¶26

WP No. 27473 of 2026

¶27

payment of the aforesaid amounts. His grievance is that the said representation has not yet been considered.

¶28

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submits that the petitioner’s representation dated 12.06.2026 will be considered on its merits and appropriate orders will be passed within such time as may be fixed by this Court.

¶29

In view of the aforesaid submission, the second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 12.06.2026 on its own merits and in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30