Subramani v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 31.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Subramani ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.

2. The Commissioner, Municipal Office, Ramanathapuram District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to allot any one shop located in the new bus stand complex at Ramanathapuram District in petitioner's favour under the category of freedom fighter quota, based on the petitioner's representations, dated 04.09.2024, 09.011.2024 and 20.01.2025. For petitioner : Mr. S.A.Ajmalkhan 1/4

For respondents : Mr.C.Satheesh Government Advocate for R1 Mr.Ajmal Khan Additional Advocate General - I Asst by Mr.K.Saravanan Standing Counsel for R2 *****

ORDER

This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and the learned Additional Advocate General - I for the second respondent.

2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking for a Mandamus to reserve the shops in the new shopping complex building in Ramanathapuram New Bus Stand under the category of freedom fighter quota, based on the petitioner's representations, dated 04.09.2024, 09.11.2024 and 20.01.2025.

3. Already, this Court has considered the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban and Local Bodies Act, 1998 framed under Section 198 of the Tamil Nadu Urban and Local Bodies Rules, 2023 vide order, dated 21.07.2025 in W.P.(MD) 2/4

No.19645 of 2025 in the case of Kannaki Ilanko vs.The State of Tamil Nadu, wherein it has been held as under:

"6. Therefore, there is no scope for entertaining this Writ Petition as no mandamus can be issued contrary to the provisions of the aforesaid Rules. At best, the petitioner can send a representation to the Government for amending the aforesaid Rules.

7. It appears that the petitioner has only sent a representation to the second respondent on 28.01.2025, which has been rightly rejected on the following date by the second respondent on 29.01.2025 as the second respondent has no powers to issue order to amend the Notification contrary to the provisions of the aforesaid Rules. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. However, it is open to the petitioner to send a suitable representation to the first respondent to amend the Rules for including a special category for preferential allotment in the ensuing tenders by amending the Rules."

4. In view of the above, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

Index : Yes / No 31.07.2025 Internet : Yes / No apd 3/4

C.SARAVANAN, J.

apd To

1. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.

2. The Commissioner, Municipal Office, Ramanathapuram District.

31.07.2025 4/4