Disposed¶29

R.Amsa v. The Additional Principal Secretary

Madras HC16 Feb 2026WP/4982/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; WP No. 4982 of 2026; Article 226 mandamus; Pattinapakkam Scheme tenement allotment; Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board; representation dated 31.01.2024 and 25.04.2025; fisherman community applicant with no house; direction to second respondent to consider representation on merits within four weeks; writ petition disposed of, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.01.2024 on merits and in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; writ petition disposed of with no costs. ¶29

R.Amsa Vs The Additional Principal Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should grant mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representations for allotment of a tenement under the Pattinapakkam Scheme.

¶20

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the case, the Court directed the second respondent (Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.01.2024 on merits and in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The consideration and passing of appropriate orders were to be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶28

Key takeaways

The writ petition was disposed of, with no costs.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (P.T. Asha, J.), WP No. 4982 of 2026, decided 16-02-2026: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the Additional Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development (first respondent) to consider the petitioner R. Amsa's representation dated 25/04/2025 for allotment of a tenement in the Pattinapakkam Scheme. The petitioner, belonging to a fisherman community and owning no house, had applied to the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board (second respondent), made an unactioned representation dated 31.01.2024 to the Board, and a further representation dated 25.04.2025 to the first respondent as nodal authority. Without going into the merits, the Court directed the second respondent to consider the 31.01.2024 representation on 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 costs.

¶1

WP No. 4982 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

WP No. 4982 of 2026

¶7

R.Amsa W/O.Raja No.39/B, Dhurgaiamman Koil Street, Nochikuppam Mylapore, Chennai 600 004,

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

The Additional Principal Secretary Department of Housing and Urban Development St.George Fort, Chennai.

¶11

Tamil Nadu Urabn Habitat Development Board, Represented by the Managing Director No.5 Kamarajar Salai Mylapore, Chennai 600 005.

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER : Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25/04/2025 for allotment of tenementin the Pattinapakkam Scheme.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Sivakumar

¶15

For Respondent(s): Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, SGP for R1 Mr.G.Venkatesan, Standing Counsel for R2

¶16

Page1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 4982 of 2026

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking mandamus directing the 1st respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25/04/2025 for allotment of tenement in the Pattinapakkam Scheme.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner belongs to a fisherman community and has no house in her name. Therefore, she applied for a tenement under Pattinapakkam Scheme in the second respondent Board. Since she was not given any allotment, she made a representation dated 31.01.2024 before the second respondent which was pending for consideration. Thereafter, the petitioner had also made a representation dated 25.04.2025 before the first respondent who is the nodal authority for allotment in the Pattinapakkam scheme. Since there was no action taken till date, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶22

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

¶23

Considering the relief now sought for by the learned counsel for the

¶24

petitioner, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.01.2024, on merits and in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders, within a

¶25

Page2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

WP No. 4982 of 2026

¶28

period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶30

16-02-2026