IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 01-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

and WMP No. 50707 of 2025

B.Devika Rani

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Registrar

Cooperative Societies (Housing),

Tamil Nadu Cooperative Housing Federation Campus,

No.493, Anna Salai, Nandhanam, Chennai-35,

Presently At 2^nd Floor, No.48,

Ritherdon Road, Vepery, Chennai-600 007.

2.The President

M/s.VSN Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

VSB, No.4, Swami Sivananda Salai,

Chennai-600 002.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER

calling for the records with respect to order dated 05.02.2024, by the respondent No.1, enclosing the Letter dated 04.01.2023 by the respondent no.2, and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to allot one plot in the name of the petitioner as per the order dated 10.12.2015 in Ref. No.9201/ 2010 /

Sa.Ba.1, by the respondent No.1.

For Petitioner(s): M/s.R.Sankarakutralingam

V.V.Kathiresan

V.Premkumar

R.Gayathri M.V.Satish

For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Tamilvendan, GA

O R D E R

The petitioner challenges the proceedings of the respondents dated

05.02.2024 and 04.01.2023. She seeks a further direction that the respondent allotted a flat in her favour as per the orders dated 10.12.2015.

2. The petitioner's husband, one Balasubramaniam, was an employee of Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL). During the course of his employment, he joined the 2^nd respondent Society, as a member. He passed away on

18.05.2005 leaving behind, the petitioner and four children, as his legal heirs.

3. In the year 2011, the petitioner came to be aware that the 2^nd respondent is allotting plots for its members. As her husband was a member, she sought allotment to be made in her name. After some initial delay, pursuant to an order passed by this Court in W.P.No. 6067 of 2013 dated 01.04.2013, orders were passed in her favour on 10.12.2015. The Society was to allot a plot on priority basis for six(6) other persons similarly situated. The petitioner states that of the seven persons, six persons have been allotted plots, and for reasons best known to the respondents, the petitioner alone was denied of the benefit of allotment.

4. Hence, she made several representations dated 06.12.2022, 25.01.2023, 08.05.2023, 24.06.2023, 03.10.2023 and finally on 18.09.2023[to the Chief Minister's Special Cell] seeking redressal for her grievance.

5. Finally, the 1^st respondent had addressed a communication to her dated 05.02.2024 stating that the 2^nd respondent had rejected her request by order dated 04.01.2023. Hence, she challenged the same before this Court on several grounds.

6. When the matter came up for admission, I noticed immense strength in the arguments of Mr.R.Sankarakutralingam regarding the impugned order dated 04.01.2023. While the order is said to have been passed on 4^th of January, 2023, it refers to proceedings, which have taken place much subsequent to the impugned orders. Initially, I entertained a doubt that it might be a typographical error.

7. On perusal of the order of the 1^st respondent, it became clear that it is not a typographical error. This is because the order dated 05.02.2024 also refers to the order passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 04.01.2023. I pointed out this serious aberration, in exercise of power by the Secretary, to Mr.Tamilvendan, appearing for the respondents. He went through the impugned orders, and sought time to get instructions.

8. Mr.Tamilvendan, after getting in touch with the 2^nd respondent, has filed an undertaking affidavit of the present Administrator of the 2^nd respondent Society. The affidavit is scanned and extracted hereunder:-

".

9. Though a faint attempt has been made by the Administrator to support the impugned orders, this Court is not inclined to go into the issue on account of the categorical undertaking given by her in paragraph No.4. She has stated that she will withdraw the proceedings dated 04.01.2023 and thereafter, consider the representations made by the petitioner afresh and pass fresh orders in accordance with law.

10.