The competent licensing authority is mandated to consider representations against the issuance of a public building licence when a bona fide dispute regarding title and possession of the premises is brought to its attention by interested parties.

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 4 to 8 to consider the representation of the Petitioners dated 06.06.2025 and thereby not to grant D-License to the 9th respondent for running school in the property of Arulmigu Angala Parameshwari Soniahswamy Temple at Door No.7, Melaponnagaram Main Road, Madurai - 625 016 as per Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973 .

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Manohar

For Respondents : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff, Government Advocate for R1 to R8

: Mr.M.Ponniah for R9 and R10

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the official respondents to consider the petitioners’ representation dated 06.06.2026. By the said representation, the petitioners requested the authorities not to grant a licence in Form-D under Section 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Act, 1965, read with Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Rules, 1966, to the ninth respondent for running a school in the property belonging to Arulmigu Angala Parameswari Sonaihswamy Temple, situated at Door No.7, Melaponnagaram Main Road, Madurai – 625 016.

2. The petitioners contend that the property in question belongs to the aforesaid temple and that a former trustee, without lawful authority, had alienated the property in favour of a third party. According to the petitioners, respondents 9 and 10 are presently running a school in the said premises without any valid title, right or interest over the property. It is further stated that the petitioners, being worshippers of the temple, had instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration that the property belongs to the temple. The said suit was decreed in their favour, and the decree was subsequently confirmed by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

3. On the other hand, respondents 9 and 10 claim that they are in occupation of the property as tenants and are running the school in their capacity as lessees and not as trespassers. In view of the rival claims regarding the nature of their occupation and entitlement to continue the educational institution in the premises, the petitioners have requested the authorities not to grant the licence sought by respondents 9 and 10.

4. Having regard to the nature of the dispute and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, this Court is of the view that the competent authority should consider the petitioners’ representation and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.

5. Accordingly, the fifth respondent, being the competent authority, is directed to consider the petitioners’ representation dated 06.06.2026 on its own merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon.

6. Before passing any orders, the fifth respondent shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as respondents 9 and 10 and consider all relevant materials that may be placed before it.

7. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.