P Rajkumar v. The Commissioner,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN & W.M.P.(MD)Nos.25839 & 26267 of 2025 P.Rajkumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai.

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Madurai Corporation Zone-2, Madurai.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned Demand Notice Assessment No.115/033/00976 dated 21.07.22 on the file of the 1st Respondent and consequently Impugned Order passed in TAC/1/2025 dated 23.10.25 on the file of 1st Respondent and quash the same and further directing the Respondents to refund the excess property tax amount.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For Respondents : Mrs.S.Devasena 1/3

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner suffered an adverse assessment order regarding levy of property tax. He went before the appellate committee. The committee confirmed the original order. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed.

3. In normal circumstances, I would have entertained the writ petition. But the learned standing counsel points out that the statute provides for a remedy of appeal before the District Judge. The petitioner states that he will file such an appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such an appeal is filed, it shall be entertained by the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai without reference to limitation and numbered immediately. The appeal itself will be disposed of on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six months. Till the Principal District Judge dispose of the appeal, the impugned demand will not be enforced. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

27.11.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi 2/3

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

rmi 27.11.2025 3/3