A.Sultan Mohideen v. The Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:01.06.2026

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI A.Sultan Mohideen ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Commissioner Chennai Corporation, Rippon Building, Chennai

2. The Assistant Revenue Officer Corporation of Greater Chennai Adyar Zonal office, Chennai 20 ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to dispose the representation dated 25.08.2025 pending on the file of the 2nd respondent in accordance with law For Petitioner : Mr.M. Jaikumar For Respondents : Mr.P. Dinesh Kumar

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose the representation dated 25.08.2025 pending on the file of the 2nd respondent in accordance with law.

1/4

2. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of te property comprised in Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor at No.18, 4th Street, Rangarajapuram, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the property tax assessed by the respondents for the aforesaid property is arbitrary and thereby caused serious prejudice to him. In such circumstances , he submitted representations dated 31.08.2023 and 25.08.2025 requesting the Corporation authorities to re-assess the property tax and rectify the discrepancy. Since the said representations have not been considered, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the subject property and therefore, the petitioner submitted representations dated 31.08.2023 and 25.08.2025 requesting the respondents to re-assess the property tax and rectify the discrepancy. Therefore, it would suffice, if a direction is issued by this Court to the respondents to consider the aforesaid representations of the petitioner, within a time frame.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the grievance of the petitioner pertains to assessment of property tax. As against the assessment made by the respondent Corporation, an effective statutory appellate remedy is available under the provisions of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. Without exhausting the said remedy, the 2/4

petitioner has straightaway approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and he prayed for dismissal of this writ petition.

5. Heard the submissions made by learned counsel on both sides and perused the entire records.

6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that there is a statutory remedy is available under the relevant provision. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to issue any positive directions. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority challenging the assessment of property tax in the manner known to law. In the event such appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made in this order.

7. Granting such a liberty, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. 01.06.2026 Index : Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-speaking order vsi2 3/4

M. DHANDAPANI, J.

vsi2 To :

1. The Commissioner Chennai Corporation, Rippon Building, Chennai

2. The Assistant Revenue Officer Corporation of Greater Chennai Adyar Zonal office, Chennai 20 01.06.2026 4/4