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) 24129

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI, J
B.Pothumani – Appellant
Versus
The Additional principal Secretary, Department of Housing and urban Development – Respondent



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Sivakumar
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Balamurugan, GA R1, Mr.G.Venkatesan

Court directed timely consideration of a housing application under constitutional writ jurisdiction.

Headnote:This writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for allotment of tenement in the Pattinapakkam Scheme. The petitioner, belonging to the fishermen community, had applied for a tenement, which was not allotted despite a previous representation. The court directed the second respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 29.04.2025 within six weeks. The request sought by the petitioner was limited and granted.

Table of Content
1. petition for housing allotment for a community member. (Para 1 , 2)
2. advocates' arguments regarding the representation. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court directed consideration of petition. (Para 5 , 6)

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 1st Respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 29.04.2025 for allotment of tennement in the pattinapakkam Scheme.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she belongs to fishermen community and living near Marina Beach area. She has no house in her name and therefore, she has applied for a tenement in the second respondent Board. The second respondent did not allot a tenement. The petitioner's family members did not get any tenement in the Tsunami scheme. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the second respondent on 19.01.2024 for allotment of a house and the same is not considered. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court may direct the respondents to consider and pass orders on the petitioners representation within the stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the representation will be considered and orders will be passed within the stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

5. Heard the learned counsel for both side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the limited request sought for by the petitioner, this court directs the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated

29.04.2025 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

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