Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
R.Rengasamy – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. impugned rejection violates court order and section 135. (Para 3) |
| 2. section 135(4) mandates notice for deviations before rejection. (Para 4) |
| 3. mechanical rejection undermines regularisation and property rights. (Para 5) |
| 4. set aside order; direct notice and reconsideration within three months. (Para 6) |
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Zone-V, Madurai West, Madurai Corporation, Thirupparankundram, Madurai-625 005. ... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order issued by the 2nd respondent in Ma5E1/000492/2026 dated 25.02.2026 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the building of the petitioners at Door Nos.293, 293A, 293B, 293C in Survey Nos.150, 153, 364, 368 situated at Harivipatti, Madurai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinayak, Standing Counsel
ORDER
(Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order issued b
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
