Disposed¶25

S.Vijaya v. The District Collector

Madras HC10 Apr 2026WP(MD)/10212/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(MD)No.10212 of 2026; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Hemant Chandangoudar, J.; 10.04.2026; writ of mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; consideration of representation dated 10.03.2026; Tamil Nadu Chief Minister's Women Entitlement Scheme; senior citizen; Adi Dravidar community; husband's annual income Rs. 60,000/-; eight-week compliance timeline; no costs; disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2026 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within eight (8) weeks of receipt of a copy of the order; no order as to costs. ¶25

S.Vijaya Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the second respondent should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2026 relating to her claimed eligibility for benefits under the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister's Women Entitlement Scheme.

¶19

Court's answer

The Court took on record the Government Advocate's on-instructions undertaking that the petitioner's representation will be considered in accordance with law within a time frame to be fixed by the Court.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2026 on its own merits.

¶26

Key takeaways

Appropriate orders are to be passed in accordance with law within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶26
There shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (mandamus, Article 226) disposed of by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court (Hemant Chandangoudar, J., 10.04.2026). The petitioner, stating she is a senior citizen of the Adi Dravidar community whose husband's annual income is Rs. 60,000/-, claimed eligibility for benefits under the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister's Women Entitlement Scheme and complained that her representation dated 10.03.2026 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai (second respondent) had not been considered. After the learned Government Advocate accepted notice and undertook (on instructions) that the representation would be considered in accordance with law within a Court-fixed time frame — which submission was taken on record — the Court disposed of the petition, directing the second respondent to consider the representation on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within eight (8) weeks of receipt of a copy of the order. No order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.10212 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.04.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.10212 of 2026

S.Vijaya

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶12

3.The Thasildhar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2026 within the stipulated time described by this Court.

¶14

For Petitioner :Mr.M.Chinnadurai For Respondents :Mr.P.Thambidurai Government Advocate *****

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.10212 of 2026

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is before this Court seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 10.03.2026.

¶20

The petitioner claims to be a senior citizen belonging to the Adi Dravidar community. She states that her husband’s annual income is Rs. 60,000/- and that she is therefore eligible for benefits under the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister’s Women Entitlement Scheme. The grievance of the petitioner is that her representation has not been considered till date.

¶21

Mr. P. Thambidurai, learned Government Advocate, who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner’s representation will be considered in accordance with law within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. The said submission is taken on record.

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD)No.10212 of 2026

¶25

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a

¶26

direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 10.03.2026 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27