← Library
Madras High CourtWP/18448/2025disposed of

S.Govindaraj v. The District Manager

2025-07-08Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08-07-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY S.Govindaraj, S/o.Somasundaram, 2/83,Mulla Sahib Street, Mint, Chennai-600 001.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The District Manager, TASMAC, Chennai (North), O/o.District Manager, B-4, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur Chennai-600 058.

2.Managing Director, TASMAC, Thalamithu Natarajan Maligai, Chennai-600 008.

3.The Senior Regional Manager TASMAC, O/o.Senior Regional Manager, Ambattur Chennai-600 058.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 06.05.2025 and to take appropriate action, under due process of law within the time frame. For Petitioner(s):

Ms.C.Abinaya For Mr.P.Raja For Respondent(s):

Mr.K.Sathish Kumar Standing Counsel

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.05.2025.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the property bearing Door No.31, Laxmi Amman Koil Street, Perambur, Chennai - 600 031 and the petitioner rented out the said property to the respondents for running TASMAC and license for running the eatable shop was being issued to various persons, who have obtained "no objection" from the petitioner for running such shop. While so, some third parties, filed a suit for

declaration of title over the aforesaid property and obtained ex parte decree against the petitioner and now the third parties threaten the person who are running the eatables shop to pay the rent to them. Though the third parties have obtained ex parte decree against the petitioner, the possession of the property is with the petitioner and the petitioner has obtained patta and electricity connection in his name.

3.He would further submit that due to the problems created by the third parties, the respondent defaulted in paying the rent. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents to take action in this regard and also to pay the arrears of rent. However, the same was not considered till date. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

4.Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the representation of the petitioner will be consider and the same will be disposed of at the earliest point of time.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

6.Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and the fact that the representation of the petitioner is pending for the past two months, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.05.2025 and dispose of the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 08-07-2025 rst Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To 1.The District Manager TASMAC, Chennai (North), O/o.District Manager, B-4, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur Chennai-600 058 2.Managing Director, TASMAC, Thalamithu Natarajan Maligai, Chennai-600 008.

3.The Senior Regional Manager TASMAC, O/o.Senior Regional Manager, Ambattur, Chennai-600 058.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.

rst 08-07-2025