SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 3323

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
S.GOPAL – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION TERRITORY OF PUDUCHERRY – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN and WMP.Nos.49510 and 52598 of 2025 W.P.No.44370 of 2025 S.Gopal ..Petitioner Vs

1. The Union Territory of Puducherry, Represented by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Goubert Avenue, Beach Road, White Town, Puducherry 605 001.

2. The Commissioner, Puducherry Municipality, Puducherry.

..Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents Municipality to allot shop No.12 in the Ground Floor to the petitioner herein in the newly renovated western wing of Anna Thidal Smart city building as per undertaking given by the Respondent Municipality vide its proceedings in Proceedings No.3317/PU.NA/VA.A-2/A, 4/2020 dated 4.3.2021 P.Nirmala … Petitioner Vs.

1. The Union Of India, Represented by Commissioner Cum Secretary to Government, Government Of Union Territory Of Puducherry, Puducherry.

2.The Director Of Local Administration Government Of Union Territory Of Puducherry, Puducherry.

3.The Commissioner, Pondicherry Municipality, Puducherry.

… Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the 3rd respondent to allot Shop No.11 (Ground Floor) in Kuber Bazaar, Anna Thidal complex to the petitioner in accordance with her earlier tenancy rights and the assurance contained in the Municipality’s communication dated 02.03.2021.

For Petitioner: Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar (in W.P.No.44370/2025 )

Mr.R.Saravanan (in W.P.No.47064/2025)

For Respondents: Ms. Usha (in both W.P.’s) Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry)

C O M M O N O R D E R

W.P.No.44370 of 2025 has been filed seeking a direction to the Respondent Municipality to allot Shop No.12 in the Ground Floor to the petitioner herein in the newly renovated western wing of Anna Thidal Smart city building as per undertaking given by the Respondent Municipality vide its Proceedings No.3317/PU.NA/VA.A-2/A, 4/2020 dated 4.3.2021.

2. W.P.No.47064 of 2025 has been filed to direct the 3rd respondent to allot Shop No.11 (Ground Floor) in Kuber Bazaar, Anna Thidal complex to the petitioner in accordance with her earlier tenancy rights and the assurance contained in the Municipality’s communication dated 02.03.2021.

3. The petitioners were occupants of complex called the Anna Thidal Commercial Complex. There is no dispute that the said commercial complex belongs to the Puducherry Municipality. The Municipality availed the Smart City Re-Development Project that had been promoted by the Government of Puducherry. It decided to pull down the existing complex and put up the new one in the very same area. The Municipality had assured the Petitioners that once they handover the possession, the existing building will be pull down and new superstructure will be put up and in the new superstructure, the petitioners will be accommodated.

4. The petitioners claim that the new building had been constructed but the process of re-allotment was not done in a proper manner. Hence, they are before this court.

5. A perusal of the proceeding of the Municipality dated 04.03.2021 indicates that the Municipality had held out to the existing shop owners that on re-construction, they will be accommodated in the new complex. However, the proceeding does not indicate that the petitioners will be given the same shops that they were in occupation of, on re-construction.

6. Mr.Dinesh kumar and Mr. Saravanan state that the new shopping complex consists of ground floor and the 1st floor. 24 shops have been constructed in the new complex, whereas the total number of shops in the old building is 15. They plead that unless and until the petitioners are given the same shops they will be put to deep prejudice. Taking into consideration the plea of Mr.Saravavan and Mr.Dinesh Kumar, I called upon the 2nd respondent to come up with the proposal which would be fair to the existing shop

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top