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) 40924

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Dhandapani, J
C.Maragatham – Appellant
Versus
The Additional Principal Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development – Respondent
Writ Petition



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Sivakumar
For the Respondents:Mr.S.Rajesh for R1, Government Advocate, Mr.G.Venkatesh for R2

Directive to public authorities to consider pending representations in accordance with law within stipulated time.

Headnote:The Court analyzed the constitutional mandate under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, empowering it to issue directions to public authorities for consideration of representations. The petitioner, belonging to the fisherman community, contended that she had applied for allotment of a tenement under the Pattinapakkam Scheme but received no action on her representation dated 26.04.2025 despite multiple prior efforts. Issues raised include the inaction of the authority in considering a valid housing allotment request. Ratio Decidendi establishes the principle that the Court can direct administrative authorities to act on pending representations without examining merits.

Result: The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.04.2025 and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

Table of Content
1. facts of the case and petitioner's contention regarding housing allotment (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

ORDER

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

2. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider petitioner’s representation dated 26.04.2025 for allotment of tenement in the Pattinapakkam Scheme.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that he belongs to fisherman community and living near Marina Beach Area. He has no house in his name. So, she had applied for a tenement in the 2nd respondent Board. Since he was not given any tenement in the Tsunami Scheme, he had sent several representations as well as application under RTI to the 2nd respondent and subsequently, she had sent representation dated 26.04.2025 to the 1st respondent, who is the nodal authority for housing for all scheme. But, so far, there is no action on his representation. Hence, he seeks a direction.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court without going into the merits of the case directs the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 26.04.2025 and pass appropriate orders on own merit and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. In view of the above, this writ petition stands 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