Allowed

M.Tamilarasi v. the Additional Principal Secretary

Madras HC2 Jan 2026WP/49196/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 226 sought a direction for the respondent to consider a representation regarding allotment of a tenement in the Pattinapakkam scheme. The court allowed the petition, directing the respondent to dispose of the matter on merits within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed. The 1st respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.04.2025 and dispose of the same on merits within eight weeks.

M.Tamilarasi Vs the Additional Principal Secretary — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.No.49196 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

W.P.No.49196 of 2025

M.Tamilarasi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Additional Principal Secretary Department Of Housing And Urban Development, St. George Fort, Chennai.

¶11

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

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶14

praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, Directing the 1st respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 26.04.2025 for allotment of tenement in the Pattinapakkam scheme.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sivakumar For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, Spl GP for R.1

¶16

: Mr.G.Venkatesan, for R.2.

¶17

1/4

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.49196 of 2025

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-

¶22

“Directing the 1st respondent herein to consider the representation

¶23

of the petitioner dated 26.04.2025 for allotment of tenement in the Pattinapakkam scheme.”

¶24

The petitioner’s case is that she belongs to the fisherman community and is residing in the Marina Beach area. She does not own any house or land either in her name or in the name of her spouse. Further, neither the petitioner nor her family members were allotted any tenement under the Tsunami Rehabilitation Scheme. Therefore, she had applied for allotment of a tenement in the Pattinapakkam scheme before the 2nd respondent Board. However, no action was taken on the said application. Consequently, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 26.04.2025 to the 1st respondent. To date, the said representation has not been considered.

¶25

Hence, the present Writ Petition.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

¶27

Considering the limited request of the petitioner and taking note of

¶28

the fact the petitioner’s representation dated 26.04.2025 has not been 2/4

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.49196 of 2025

¶31

considered to date, the Writ Petition is allowed. The 1st respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 26.04.2025 and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶32

02.01.2026

¶33

(shr) Index : Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶34

¶35

1.The Additional Principal Secretary Department Of Housing And Urban Development, St. George Fort, Chennai.

¶36

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

¶37

3/4

¶38

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

W.P.No.49196 of 2025

P.T. ASHA . J.,

(shr)

W.P.No.49196 of 2025

¶43

02.01.2026 (2/5)

¶44

4/4

¶45

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

M.Tamilarasi v. the Additional Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Tamilarasi v. the Additional Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Jancy Lilly Pushpam Vs The Assistant Divisional Engineer

Mr. P.B.Nagamallappa and 2 others Vs Shri. S.Kandasamy Ias., and 5 others

Dr. M. Muthamilselvan, Vs Dr. Rupa Gunaseelan

M/s.D.J.Water Supply Vs the District Collector

Ranjith Kumar.S Vs Thenmozhi

M/s.Vkss and Co. Vs The Superintending Engineer (Nh)