Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 21289

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MS. P.T. ASHA, J
J.Nasiruthin S/o.Jamal Mohideen M/s.Jamal Tailor, Proprietor No.17-1, Rangarajapuram 2nd Street, Saidapet, Chennai- 600 015 – Appellant
Versus
The Registrar (Administration) Anna University Campus Guindy,Chennai-600 025 – Respondent
Writ Petition

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.A.Hari
For the Respondents: Mr.I.Calvin Jones, for M/s. Ajmal Associates

Administrative fairness requires consideration of representations before detrimental actions are taken.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus to direct the respondent to consider the petitioners' representation dated 12.01.2026. Facts of the Case: The petitioners allege that their shops were demolished without notice. They seek alternate accommodation. Findings of the Court: The court directed the respondent to consider the representation on merits within four weeks.

Issues: The court addresses whether the petitioners' representation should be considered.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of fair procedure in administrative actions.

Result: The Writ Petition stands allowed.

Table of Content
1. demolition without notice infringes upon due process. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. court emphasizes fair consideration of representations. (Para 6)

ORDER

The above Writ Petition has been for the following reliefs:-

“to direct the respondent to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 12.01.2026”

2. Brief Facts;-

3. The petitioners’ case is that, in the year 1952, the 1st petitioner’s grandfather was permitted by the respondent college to occupy a small portion of the college premises for the purpose of carrying on the business of tailoring. At that time, the 1st petitioner’s grandfather paid a sum of Rs. 30/- as a deposit for running the shop. After the demise of his grandfather, the petitioners’ father occupied the said premises and continued the tailoring business under the name and style of M/s. JAMAL TAILORING. Petitioners 2 to 4 are similarly placed persons who have been running their respective shops in the respondent college campus for several years.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that, all of a sudden, on 15.12.2025, without issuing any prior notice or affording them an opportunity of hearing to put forth their case, the respondent had demolished the petitioners’ shops and removed all the valuable articles therefrom. Aggrieved by the said illegal act of the respondent, the petitioners had submitted a representation dated 12.01.2026 seeking allotment of an alternate place/room in the same premises to enable them to run their shops and earn their livelihood. However, the said representation has not been considered to date. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioners’ representation dated

12.01.2026 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document