Appu v. The Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11-08-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH WP Nos. 30051 and 30055 of 2025 AND WMP NO. 33676 OF 2025,WMP NO. 33677 OF 2025,WMP NO. 33678 OF 2025,WMP NO. 33683 OF 2025,WMP NO. 33686 OF 2025,WMP NO. 33691 OF 2025

1. APPU S/o.Late.Paramasivam, No.20/36, Poonamallee High Road, Maduravoyal, Chennai-600 095.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Commissioner HR AND CE Department, Chennai-600 034.

2.The Joint Commissioner HR AND CE Department, Chennai-600 034.

3.The Assistant Commissioner HR AND CE Department, Chennai-600 034.

4.The Executive Officer Arulmigu Margasagaya Eswarar Thirukoil, Maduravoyal, Chennai-600 095.

5.M/s.Sukran Cusines Private Ltd., Rep. By Its Proprietor No.72, R.K.Salai, Cathedral Road,

Chennai-600 086.

Respondent(s) WP No. 30055 of 2025

1. SUMITHRA D/o. Late Nagalingam, W/o. Appu, No.20/36, Poonamallee High Road, Maduravoyal, Chennai-600 095.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Commissioner Hr And Ce Department, Chennai600 034.

2.The Joint Commissioner Hr And Ce Department, Chennai600 034.

3.The Assistant Commissioner Hr And Ce Department, Chennai600 034.

4.The Executive Officer Arulmigu Margasagaya Eswarar Thirukoil, Maduravoyal, Chennai-600 095.

5.M/s.Sukran Cusines Private Ltd., Rep. By Its Proprietor No.72, R.K.Salai, Cathedral Road, Chennai-600 086.

Respondent(s) COMMON PRAYER Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Consititution of India for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relevant to the M.P. No.20/ 2012 / A3 dated 22.06.2020 (in WP No.30051 of 2025), M.P. No.24/ 2012 / A3 dated 22.06.2020 (in WP No.30055 of 2025) passed by the 2nd respondent herein and the same was confirmed through order in R.P. No.130/2021/d2 dated

16.06.2022 (in WP No.30051 of 2025) R.P. No.131/2021/d2 dated 16.06.2022 (in WP No.30055 of 2025) passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal, improper and as against principles of natural justice and thereby regularize the petitioner as a lawful tenant of the property situated at No.20/36 P.H. Road, Maduravoyal, Chennai-95 totally to an extent of 1650 sq.ft, (includes Commercial and residential) by fixing the fair rent towards the same and enable the petitioner to pay the same to the 4th respondent temple and enable the petitioner to a pay the same to the 4th respondent temple. In both WPs For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Rajeshkanna For Respondent(s):

Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R4

ORDER

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 22.06.2020 and which was confirmed by the 1st respondent through proceedings dated 16.06.2022 and for a consequential direction to regularise the tenancy of the petitioners in the subject property by fixing fair rent. 2.

Heard Mr.Rajeshkanna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.R.R Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 4.

3.

It is not necessary for this Court to go into the merits of

the case for the simple reason that the order was passed by the 2nd respondent dated 22.06.2020 and it was confirmed by the 1st respondent dated 16.06.2022 and the petitioners have filed the present writ petition on 31.07.2025. There is absolutely no explanation in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as to why it took the petitioners almost three long years to approach this Court and file the present writ petition. The law of limitation may not apply in writ proceedings. However, the principle of laches will certainly apply even in writ proceedings. Therefore, a litigant is expected to challenge an order within a reasonable time and if the same is not done, it has to be necessarily explained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, failing which, the writ petition can be rejected on the ground of laches alone, 4.

The case in hand falls under the above category and the petitioners have not explained as to why it took three years to approach this Court and file the present writ petition. Even otherwise, this Court finds that the ground raised by the petitioners is unreasonable since during the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner, an interim order was passed and the petitioners were directed to pay the rents as a condition precedent for the removal of

the lock and seal and the petitioners did not comply with that order. Therefore, even the conduct of the petitioners is far from satisfactory. 5.

This Court does not find any merits in the present writ petitions warranting the exercise of its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, both these writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

11-08-2025 rka Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To 1.The Commissioner Hr And Ce Department, Chennai600 034.

2.The Joint Commissioner Hr And Ce Department, Chennai600 034.

3.The Assistant Commissioner Hr And Ce Department, Chennai600 034.

4.The Executive Officer Arulmigu Margasagaya Eswarar Thirukoil, Maduravoyal, Chennai-600 095.

5.M/s.Sukran Cusines Private Ltd., Rep. By Its Proprietor No.72, R.K.Salai, Cathedral Road, Chennai-600 086.

N.ANAND VENKATESH J.

rka WP Nos. 30051 and 30055 of 2025 WMP NO. 33676 OF 2025,WMP NO. 33677 OF 2025,WMP NO.

33678 OF 2025,WMP NO. 33683 OF 2025,WMP NO. 33686 OF 2025,WMP NO.

33691 OF 2025 11-08-2025