IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE N.Durai ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The District Collector Chengalpattu.

2. The District Manager Kancheepuram (South) kancheepuram.

..Respondent(s)

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the respondent not to reopen TASMAC shop No.4106 to be located at No.6, GST Road, Killambakkam village, Chengalpattu District.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Arumuga Rajan, GA (R1)

For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Balakrishnan, for R2

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents not to reopen TASMAC shop No.4106 to be located at No.6, GST Road, Killambakkam, Chengalpattu District, based on the petitioner’s representation dated 30.12.2025. Since the said representation has not been considered till date, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2. Mr.P.Anandakumar, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent; and Mr.K.Balakrishnan, learned standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the second respondent.

3. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Advocate for the first respondent that the landlord (Yuvaraj) for the aforesaid shop had already approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.48441 of 2025, and by order dated 11.12.2025, this Court had disposed of the said writ petition by directing the landlord (Yuvaraj) to submit a fresh representation to the second respondent (District Collector, Chengalapet Distrcit) in the said writ petition for reconsideration of the impugned order, under which, an order was passed to close down the TASMAC shop, and in the said writ petition, a further direction was also issued to the second respondent therein that on receipt of the representation from the landlord (Yuvaraj), within the stipulated time, the second respondent (District Collector) shall consider the same on merits and in accordance with law, after affording personal hearing to the landlord (Yuvaraj) within a period of 4 weeks thereafter.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent (District Collector, Chengalpet) submits that though the landlord (Yuvaraj) has given a representation as directed by this Court in its order dated 11.12.2025 passed in W.P.No.48441 of 2025, the said representation is yet to be disposed of by the District Colelctor. He submits on instructions that the representation of the petitioner in this writ petition seeking a direction to the District Collector not to reopen the very same TASMAC shop can also be considered along with the representation of the landlord (Yuvaraj), within the time stipulated by this Court in W.P.No.48441 of 2025, dated 11.12.2025.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition, who is opposing opening of the TASMAC shop, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is willing to raise all objections to the first respondent (District Collector) for opposing opening of the TASMAC shop, and therefore, a direction may be issued to the District Collector, Chengalpet, to consider and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, on the representation of the petitioner along with the representation made by the landlord (Yuvaraj).

6. After hearing the rival submissions, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:-

(a) The petitioner in this writ petition is directed to submit written objections with the first respondent (District Collector, Chengalpet), with regard to opening of the TASMAC shop morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(b) On receipt of the same within the stipulated period, the first respondent shall comply with the directions issued by this Court on 11.12.2025 in W.P.No.48441 of 2025, after giving due consideration to the request made by the landlord (Yuvaraj), as well as the objections raised by the petitioner in this writ petiti