Dismissed¶41

S.Nagalakshmi v. the Commissioner

Madras HC6 Apr 2026WP/50423/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; writ petition under Article 226 dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue appropriate remedy; mandamus sought to consider representation dated 10.12.2025 regarding demolition order dated 25.4.2025 and rejection of Sri Thulasivignesh Matric School's online plan approval application; related writs W.P.No.16311 of 2025 and W.P.No.1580 of 2024; no costs; interim application W.M.P.No.56443 of 2025 dismissed; no merits adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law; no order as to costs; interim application W.M.P.No.56443 of 2025 consequently dismissed. ¶41

S.Nagalakshmi Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 1 to 10 should be directed by mandamus to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.12.2025 in the light of the order in W.P.No.16311 of 2025 dated 07.8.2025, the counter affidavit in W.P.No.1580 of 2024 and the demolition order of the 6th respondent dated 25.4.2025, and to reject the 11th respondent's online application for plan approval and appeal. (Framed from the prayer; never adjudicated as the petition was withdrawn.)

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the petitioner sought withdrawal of the petition; the Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn with liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law, made no order as to costs, and consequently dismissed the interim application (W.M.P.No.56443 of 2025). No issue on the merits was adjudicated.

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Division Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ and G. Arul Murugan, J.) — W.P.No.50423 of 2025 & W.M.P.No.56443 of 2025, decided 06.04.2026 — S. Nagalakshmi v. The Commissioner, School Education Department and others. The petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 10 to consider her representation dated 10.12.2025 in the light of the order in W.P.No.16311 of 2025 dated 07.8.2025, the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.1580 of 2024 and the demolition order of the 6th respondent dated 25.4.2025, and to reject the 11th respondent's (Sri Thulasivignesh Matric School) online application for plan approval and appeal. Before any adjudication, learned counsel for the petitioner sought withdrawal; the Court, per the Hon'ble Chief Justice, dismissed the petition as withdrawn with liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law, made no order as to costs, and consequently dismissed the interim application. The merits were not considered and no precedent was discussed.

¶1

W.P.No.50423 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06.04.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶8

W.P.No.50423 of 2025

¶9

¶10

W.M.P.No.56443 of 2025

¶11

S.Nagalakshmi D/o.Subramaniam Mel Street, Thulasampatti Post Omalur Taluk Salem District.

¶12

Petitioner(s)

¶13

¶14

The Commissioner School Education Department DPI Campus Chennai-600 006.

¶15

The Director School Education Department DPI Campus Chennai-600 006.

¶16

The Secretary Housing And Urban Development Secretariat Chennai-9.

¶17

___________ Page 1 of 5_

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.50423 of 2025

¶20

The Director

¶21

Town And Country Planning Chennai-600 002.

¶22

The District Collector Salem Salem District.

¶23

The Assistant Director District Town And Country Planning Office Salem, Salem District.

¶24

The Chieg Educational Officer Salem, Salem District.

¶25

The District Educational Officer Salem, Salem District.

¶26

The Block Educational Officer Omalur, Omalur Taluk Salem District.

¶27

10.The Block Development Officer (kee.Voo) Omalur Taluk Salem District.

¶28

11.The Correspondent Sri Thulasivignesh Matric School Thulasampatti, Omalur Taluk Salem District

¶29

Respondent(s)

¶30

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 10 to consider the petitioners representation dated 10.12.2025 in the light of order passed in W.P.No.16311 of 2025 dated 07.8.2025, counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.1580 of 2024 and in terms of demolition order of 6th respondent dated 25.4.2025 and pass an appropriate order

¶31

___________ Page 2 of 5_

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.50423 of 2025

¶34

thereby rejecting the 11th respondent’s on line application for plan approval and appeal.

¶35

For Petitioner(s): Mr. M.Elango

¶36

For Respondent(s): Mr. K.Karthik Jagannath Government Advocate for R1 to R10 Mr. K.Sathyabal for R11

¶37

ORDER

¶38

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

¶39

Learned counsel for petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition

¶40

with liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

¶41

With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim application is also dismissed.

¶42

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 06.04.2026

¶43

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶44

kpl

¶45

___________ Page 3 of 5_

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.No.50423 of 2025