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) 24211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J
K.Ramaswamy – Appellant
Versus
Member Secretary (Regularization Department) – Respondent
WMP NO. 8949 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.C.Ashok Kumar for Mr.M.Saravanan
For the Respondents: Mr.B.Sanjay Balachandar – R1, Ms.Vanitha Joice Rani – R2

The court emphasizes the necessity for compliance with previous court orders regarding commercial licensing in property disputes.

Headnote:This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to restrain respondents 1 and 2 from permitting respondents 3 and 4 from running commercial activities in a specified building area. The petitioner argues against the issuance of a trade license to respondents 3 and 4 despite previous court orders. The court finds that no new application for the trade license has been filed and confirms compliance with prior directives. The Writ Petition is disposed of without further orders.

Table of Content
1. nature and grounds of the writ petition. (Para 1 , 2)
2. summary of prior court orders and current disputes. (Para 3)
3. clarification of compliance with previous orders. (Para 5 , 6)
4. final disposition of the writ petition. (Para 7)

ORDER

Heard Mr.Ashok Kumar for the petitioner and Mr.Sanjay Balachander for first respondent and Ms.Vanitha Jaice Rani for the second respondent.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent is taking steps to grant a license to respondent Nos.3 & 4 to open a commercial establishment at Block No.41/2 Vaigai Colony, 11th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 83.

3. The petitioner and the third respondent have been litigating before this Court for a decade and a half. The last of the orders came to be passed by this Court in W.P.No.1160 of 2017 dated 24.10.2017. While dismissing the said writ petition, this Court passed the following orders :-

“ 20. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted for the present. However, it is made clear that the 2nd respondent, till the disposal of the application for regularisation submitted by him under Section 113 (C) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, by the Government, shall not alter the physical features of the superstructure in question and shall also not create any further third party rights in respect of the same”.

4 Mr.Ashok Kumar states that despite the order passed by the Division Bench, the third and fourth respondents are moving the second respondent for grant of a trade license in respect of the aforesaid premises.

5. I called upon Ms.Vanitha Jaice Rani to get instructions from the second respondent. On instructions, she reports that no such application has been filed by the third and fourth respondents. She further states that the Corporation will strictly comply with the directions issued by this Court in paragraph No.20 of W.P.No.1160 of 2017.

6. The said statement is recorded. Since no application has been filed and as the respondents state that the order of this Court will be complied with, there is no necessity to pass any further order than recording the same.

7. This Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

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