M/S.Mahalakshmi Enterprises v. The Member Secretary,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18-06-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA W.P.No.19430 of 2026 M/s.Mahalakshmi Enterprises, Represented by its Partner, Anuja R Bajaj, W/o.Rajeshs Bajaj, No.4A, Stringers road, Vepery, Chennai - 600003.

... Petitioner vs.

1. The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA), Gandhi Irwin Road, Ansari Estate, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

2.M/s.Jain Housing LLP (A limited Liability Partnership Firm) Registered under the limited liability Partnership Act, 2008. Having Office at No.98/99, Habibullah Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.04.2026 and consequently directing the 1st respondent to cancel the Building sanction plan vide., SBC No.CMDA/PP/HRB/0209/2023 dated 23.09.2024 in the name of M/s.Jain Builders LLP in the writ petition schedule mentioned properties.

Page Nos.1/5

For Petitioner:

Mr. Shreedhar M For Respondents:

Mr.B.Sanjay Balachandar For R1 Mr.Arjun Suresh, for R2

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by G.Jayachandran J.) The petitioner herein alleging that building plan permission was granted by the 1st respondent, after obtaining his permission and signature as a partner of the petitioner firm and owner of the property is before this Court seeking mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.04.2026 and consequently directing the 1st respondent to cancel the building sanction plan vide. SBC No.CMDA/PP/HRB/0209/2023 dated 23.09.2024, issued in the name of M/S.Jain Builders LLP.

2. After notice, the 1st respondent/Member Secretary, CMDA as well as the 2nd respondent-M/s.Jain Housing LLP, have entered appearance. According to the Learned Counsel for CMDA, the file number mentioned in the writ petition is only an acknowledgment for receiving the building plan permission and no building sanction been accorded so far.

3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that, in view of the dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, the present Page Nos.2/5

writ petition is filed suppressing the truth and suggesting falsehood. The dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is already pending in the form of application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the High Court.

4. Considering the said facts, we find that no case is made out to issue mandamus. It is clear abuse of process of law to file writ petition citing references which are unconnected to the alleged sanction of plan.

5. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed with costs. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, High Court, Madras, within a period of four weeks, from today.

(Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.) & (N.MALA, J.) 18-06-2026 Index :Yes/No.

:Yes/No.

bsm Page Nos.3/5

To 1.The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA), Gandhi Irwin Road, Ansari Estate, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

2. The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, High Court Campus, Madras.

Page Nos.4/5

Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

AND N.MALA, J.

bsm W.P.No.19430 of 2026 18-06-2026 Page Nos.5/5