S.Vennila vs The Additional Principal Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37036

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI, J
S.Vennila – Appellant
Versus
The Additional Principal Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development – Respondent

Important Points

Court directs consideration of representation for housing allotment without assessing merits.

Subject

Civil - Writ Petition

Act Referred

Constitution of India: Article 226

Headnote

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing consideration of a representation dated 26.04.2025 for allotment of a tenement in the Pattinapakkam Scheme. The representation was made to the Additional Principal Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development and Tamilnadu Urban Habitat Development Board, but received no response. The court found the request for consideration without merits assessment appropriate. The issue framed was whether to direct consideration of the representation. The court's reasoning emphasized a limited direction without opining on merits, requiring the second respondent to evaluate the representation in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of with directions to the second respondent to consider the representation dated 26.04.2025 on merits and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Sivakumar
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Selvendran for R1, Mr.G.Venkatesan for R2

Table of Content
1. petition seeks mandamus for representation consideration (Para 2)
2. counsel requests direction for expeditious review (Para 3)
3. court directs merits consideration and disposes petition (Para 4)

O R D E R

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 26.04.2025 for allotment of tenement in the Pattinapakkam Scheme.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner made representation dated 26.04.2025 to the respondents seeking allotment of tenement in the Pattinapakkam Scheme, however, there is no response. Hence, this Court may without going into the merits of the case, issue direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.04.2025 and to pass appropriate orders, within a reasonable time frame.

4.Considering the limited relief now sought for by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.04.2025 on merits and in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible.

5.The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.