Disposed¶29

Motchamary v. The Commissioner

Madras HC6 Apr 2026WP(MD)/5222/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(MD) 5222 of 2026, Madras HC Madurai Bench, Hemant Chandangoudar J., 06.04.2026. Tenant shop demolished by Dindigul Corporation without due process; Article 226 mandamus; Fish Market Complex reconstruction; public auction of shops; due preference to erstwhile tenant; alternative shop in temporary Fish Market area; orders within two weeks; disposed of with directions; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued: (i) respondents to give due preference to the petitioner in the auction for allotment of shops in the new Fish Market Complex; (ii) respondents 1 and 2 to consider providing an alternative shop in the temporary Fish Market area on the petitioner's application and pass appropriate orders within two weeks. No costs. ¶29

Motchamary Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents interfered with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of his shop as tenant otherwise than in accordance with due process of law, warranting a writ of mandamus to forbear such interference. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directions rather than adjudicating the due-process grievance, directing the respondents to give due preference to the petitioner in the event he participates in the auction to be conducted for allotment of shops in the new Fish Market Complex.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Upon receipt of the petitioner's application, respondents 1 and 2 shall consider providing an alternative shop to him in the temporary Fish Market area and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (2) weeks.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) — Hemant Chandangoudar, J. — Writ Petition(MD)No.5222 of 2026 — 06.04.2026. Municipal/administrative law; Article 226 mandamus. The petitioner, claiming possession of a shop in the Fish Market for 40 years with a licence valid up to March 2027, sought a writ of mandamus forbearing the Dindigul Corporation respondents from interfering with his peaceful enjoyment as tenant except by due process of law, alleging his shop was demolished without due process. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the shops were demolished as dilapidated, that a new complex is proposed with shop allotment through public auction, and that preference would be given to the petitioner should he participate in the auction; the submission was placed on record. The writ petition was disposed of (not allowed by mandamus) with directions: respondents to accord due preference to the petitioner in the auction for the new Fish Market Complex, and respondents 1 and 2 to consider an application for an alternative shop in the temporary Fish Market area and pass appropriate orders within two weeks. No costs.

¶1

W.P(MD)No.5222 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.04.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

Writ Petition(MD)No.5222 of 2026

Motchamary

.. Petitioner

1.The Commissioner, Dindigul Corporation, Dindigul.

¶11

2.The Executive Engineer, Dindigul Corporation, Dindigul.

¶12

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Dindigul.

¶13

..Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents to interfere the peaceful enjoyment as tenant of the petitioner's shop without following due process of law.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Manikandan

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.J.Lawrence Standing Counsel for R1

¶17

Mr.S.S.Madhavan Spl. Govt. Pleader for R2 and R3

¶18

1/4

¶19

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

¶20

W.P(MD)No.5222 of 2026

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to forbear from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the shop as a tenant, except in accordance with due process of law.

¶23

2.The petitioner claims to have been in possession of the shop for the past 40 years and states that the licence granted in his favour is valid up to March 2027. It is his grievance that, without following due process of law, the respondents have demolished the shops.

¶24

3.The learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent submitted that the shops allotted to the petitioner and others in the Fish Market were demolished on the ground that they were in a dilapidated condition, and that a new complex is proposed to be constructed for allotment of shops through a public auction. It was further submitted that preference would be given to the petitioner, in the event he participates in the auction for allotment of shops in the new Fish Market Complex.

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

W.P(MD)No.5222 of 2026

¶28

4.The said submission is placed on record.

¶29

5.In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to give due preference to the petitioner, in the event he participates in the auction to be conducted for allotment of shops in the new Fish Market Complex. The respondents are also directed to consider providing an alternative shop to the petitioner in the temporary Fish Market area, if the petitioner makes an application in this regard. Upon receipt of such application, respondents 1 and 2 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (2) weeks. No costs.

¶30

06.04.2026

¶31

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes skn

¶32

¶33