J.Sathyabama Vs the Member Secretary

B Jayapal 9. B Nallappan 10.B Natarajan 11.B Palaniappan 12.B Subramani 13.C.Ravikumar 14.Chandrammal 15.C Krishnan 16.C Matheswaran 17.C Parathasarathy 18.C Rajan 19.Devaki 20.Elammal 21.G Sampath Kumar 22.Gurunathan Shankaran 23.J Lakshmi Narayanan 24.K.Athiappan 25.K Aarathiyappan Nadar 26.K Adithya Pandiyan 27.K Elumalai 28.K.Jayaraman 29.K Sundaramurthy 30.K Vijayaseeli 31.M.Palani 32.M.Sundararaj 33.M Mahesh 34.M Saratha 35.M Subramani 36.N.Krishna Prakash 37.P.Jayakumar 38.P.Nagarajan 39.P.Saravanan 40.P.Subramaniyam 41.Paapathi 42.P Balaraman 43.P Machi Naidu 44.P Nagarajan 45.P Palaniappan 46.P Panmaya Mary

¶25

___________ Page 2 of 6_

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.49661 of 2025

¶28

47.P Perumal 48.P Ramasamy 49.R.Mangai 50.R Duraisamy 51.R Kandhasamy 52.R Saraswathi 53.S.Amudha 54.S.Govindammal 55.S.Tamilselvi 56.S Baluraj 57.S Kanchi Kumar 58.S Sekar 59.S Sithiraivel 60.S Udayasuriyan 61.T. Muthu Krishnan 62.T. Parthiban 63.T Suseela 64.V Aranganayaki 65.V Duraisamy 66.Vembuli 67.V Govindaraj 68.V Govindhasamy 69.V M Perumal 70.V Nagarajan 71.V Vimalanathan .. Respondents

¶29

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to consider and initiate appropriate measures on the petitioner’s representation dated 13.03.2025 to remove unauthorised constructions in the 1^st and 2^nd Main Road, Mummurthy Nagar, Chrompet, Chennai - 600 044.

¶30

___________ Page 3 of 6_

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.49661 of 2025

¶33

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sathivel

¶34

ORDER

¶35

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶36

Petitioner has filed this petition, after having exhausted remedy up to the Supreme Court, on the ground that though in exercise of the liberty granted by the Supreme Court she has preferred representation, the authorities have not decided the same.

¶37

After going through the orders passed by this Court and by

¶38

the Supreme Court, it is clear that no direction has been given to any authority. It has been held that petitioner’s remedy lies in filing suit. The order of the Supreme Court also shows that petitioner was given liberty to file representation prior to moving civil Court. If the representation has remained unheard, petitioner has to approach the civil Court for remedy sought in this petition.

¶39

___________ Page 4 of 6_

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.No.49661 of 2025

¶42