Dismissed¶31

G.Jaganathan v. the Member Secretary

Madras HC2 Jul 2026WP/39590/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court writ petition (WP No. 39590 of 2025, WMP No. 44477 of 2025) dismissed as infructuous on 02-07-2026 by Justice Hemant Chandangoudar after petitioner's counsel stated the prayer had become infructuous; concerned mandamus for approval/regularisation of layout 'Sri Prasanna Vinayagar Nagar', Vellavedu village, Thiruvallur District, involving Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and Poonamallee Panchayat Union; no costs; no substantive adjudication, no statutes or precedents cited.

What the court decided

AI extract

G.Jaganathan Vs the Member Secretary — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

WP No. 39590 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WP No. 39590 of 2025

¶7

and WMP.No. 44477 of 2025

¶8

G.Jaganathan 2. E.Karunakaran

¶9

E.Ganamurthy

¶10

B.Nirmala

¶11

B.Kasthuri

¶12

B.Radhika

¶13

B.Amuthapriya

¶14

B.Anitha

¶15

B.Ambika 10.B.Bhanumathi 11.D.Loganathan 12.K.Raja All are represented by their power of attorney Mr.M.Manikandan S/o. Murugesan. ..Petitioners Vs

¶16

The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai-08

¶17

Page1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

WP No. 39590 of 2025

¶20

The Commissioner / Block Development Officer Poonamallee Panchayat Union,Poonamallee, Chennai

¶21

..Respondent(s)

¶22

Writ petition is filed praying for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to grant approval for the layout namely Sri Prasanna Vinayagar Nagar, situated at Vellavedu village, Thiruvallur District by considering the petitioner application for regularisation within a reasonable time fixed by this Court

¶23

For Petitioners:	Mr. S.Sivakumar
For Respondents:	Mr. V.Sudalai Selvan, Standing Counsel – R1
	Mr. C.Prabakaran, Government Counsel – R2

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for

¶26

the petitioner submitted that the prayer sought in the writ petition has become infructuous and nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition.

¶27

Page2 of 4

¶28

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

¶29

WP No. 39590 of 2025

¶30