Kalaivanan M Vs The Managing Director

¶1

WP No. 8953 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI WP No. 8953 of 2026 and WMP.No.9652 of 2026

Kalaivanan M

Petitioner(s)

Vs

The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Pocket 6, Board Office cum commercial complex, CIT Nagar, 1st Main Road, Chennai-600 035

¶10

2.the Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, 5th Floor, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008

¶11

3.The chief Engineer Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Pocket 6, Board office Cum Commercial Complex, CIT Nagar, 1st Main Road, Chennai-600 035

¶12

4.The Executive Engineer cum Administrative Officer Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Anna Nagar Division, Thirumangalam, Chennai-600 101

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, directing the respondents 1, 3 and 4 to consider the representation dt.18.12.2025 for allotting car parking space to the petitioner by further directing the 2nd respondent to pass orders on the proposal dt.10.09.2025 which was forwarded by the 4th respondent along with revised drawing for allotting Car Park space to the home buyers in TNHB towers at Shenoy Nagar.

¶15

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

¶16

WP No. 8953 of 2026

¶17

For Petitioner(s): Ms.T.Aananthi For Respondent: Mr.D.Veerasekaran for R1,3 & 4 Mr.B.Sanjay Balachandar for R2

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition has been filed for a direction, directing the respondents 1, 3 and 4 to consider the representation dt.18.12.2025 for allotting car parking space to the petitioner by further directing the 2nd respondent to pass orders on the proposal dated 10.09.2025 which was forwarded by the 4th respondent along with revised drawing for allotting Car Park space to the home buyers in TNHB towers at Shenoy Nagar.

¶20

It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner is a allottee with MIG Flat in Flat No.50/480 at TNHB Towers, Shoney Nagar, however, the respondents has not taken any decision for allotment of car parking. Hence, this petition.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for allotment of car parking, the first respondent Board sent a communication to the second respondent by revising CMDA plan, however, till date, the second respondent has not taken any action. Hence, seeks for a direction.

¶22

Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

¶23

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

¶24

WP No. 8953 of 2026

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court without

¶26

going into the merits of the case directs the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18.12.2025, in particular, the second respondent is also directed to take decision for the proposal forwarded by the fourth respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to approach the second respondent for passing appropriate orders.

¶27