C.Prince Kumar, v. The Executive Officer,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA W.P.(MD).No.33131 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.26145 of 2025 C.Prince Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.

The Executive Officer, Thiruvattar Town Panchayat, Kanyakumari District.

... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to allot one shop to the petitioner as per his resolution passed on 20.02.2025 vide Resolution No.295 and to return back petitioner's properties seized by the respondent by considering his representation dated 04.11.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Manikandan For Respondent : Mr.C.Satheesh Government Advocate 1/6

ORDER

The above writ petition has been filed for the following relief:- "Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to allot one shop to the petitioner as per his resolution passed on 20.02.2025 vide Resolution No.295 and to return back petitioner's properties seized by the respondent by considering his representation dated 04.11.2025."

2. Mr.C.Satheesh, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

3. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2/6

4. The facts as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition reads as follows:- The petitioner would submit that he had leased out a property in the Thiruvattar bus stand in the year 2002 and has been running a juice shop since then. While so, in the year 2013, the 3rd respondent had seized the properties in the petitioner's shop and further tried to evict the petitioner from Thiruvattar bus stand. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.8 of 2013, before the Hon'ble Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram. seeking permanent injunction. Pending the suit, both the petitioner and the respondent had entered into a compromise and the respondent has passed a resolution on 20.02.2015 in Resolution No.295. As per the said resolution, the petitioner has to withdraw the said suit and the respondent has to allot one shop to the petitioner in the newly constructed building.

3/6

5. He would submit that the construction of the new building is completed. However, the respondent failed to allot one shop to the petitioner as per the resolution dated 20.02.2015 in Resolution No.295.

6. At this juncture, the petitioner had sent a detailed representation to the respondent seeking to allot one shop to the petitioner as per the resolution dated 20.02.2015 in Resolution No.295. However, the same has not been considered to date. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this court.

7. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 04.11.2025 will be considered and orders will be passed within the time stipulated by this Court.

8. In view of the same, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.11.2025 and pass final orders on merits and in 4/6

accordance with law, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to state that the respondent shall take into consideration Resolution No: 295 dated 20.02.2015.

9. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 20.11.2025 NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No rgm To The Executive Officer, Thiruvattar Town Panchayat, Kanyakumari District.

5/6

P.T.ASHA, J.

rgm W.P.(MD).No.33131 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.26145 of 2025 20.11.2025 6/6