BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR S.Purushothaman ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Chennai.

2.The Assistant Director, District Town and Country Planning Office, Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for the records relating to the impugned order Na.Ka.No.1767/2024/Thoo.Ma.A-2 dated 23/09/2025 passed by the 2nd Respondent herein based on the letter dated 08/09/2025 of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to grant approval for the petitioners regularization application bearing number DTCP/P/0096424/2017 dated 19/04/2018 considering the facts of the case within a stipulated time as prescribed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravanan For Respondents : M/s.D.Farjana Ghoushia, Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the order passed by the second respondent, whereby the request of the petitioner for grant of regularisation of the unapproved layout was rejected.

2. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the layout approval application submitted by the writ petitioner was forwarded by the second respondent to the first respondent. The first respondent, by proceedings dated 08.09.2025, returned the application raising certain queries. The second respondent has simply intimated the same to the petitioner under the impugned order. This intimation is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that, on an earlier occasion, the second respondent had rejected the request of the petitioner for regularisation by order dated 06.05.2024. The said order was challenged in W.P.(MD) No.14194 of 2024. By order dated 22.11.2024, this Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the first respondent had no jurisdiction to consider the request and that only the second respondent was competent to decide the issue relating to regularisation of the layout.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that, despite the categorical finding rendered by this Court, the second respondent once again referred the matter to the first respondent. Relying upon the proceedings dated 08.09.2025 issued by the first respondent, the present impugned order has been passed. Therefore, the impugned order is not an independent exercise of jurisdiction by the second respondent and is liable to be set aside.

5. The learned counsel also relied upon G.O.(Ms.)No.141, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(3)] Department, dated 23.09.2020, wherein, under Clause 3, it has been directed that the authorities shall not raise queries in a piecemeal manner and that all queries must be raised in a single comprehensive communication. However, in the present case, queries were raised by the second respondent on 03.10.2022, 17.07.2023 and 07.02.2025, in a piecemeal manner. Further, the first respondent had also raised queries on

27.04.2023 and 28.06.2023. According to the learned counsel, such repeated queries amount to harassment of the writ petitioner.

6. It was further submitted that the queries raised by both the first and second respondents were comprehensively answered by the petitioner through his communication dated 23.09.2025. Despite the same, the first respondent issued proceedings dated 08.09.2025, which was merely intimated by the second respondent under the impugned order.

7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that, during the pendency of the writ petition, the second respondent has independently passed an order dated 12.02.2026, raising five comprehensive queries. According to her, if the petitioner satisfactorily responds to these queries, approval would be granted by the second respondent. It