Sheik Abdullah v. The Director Of Municipal Administration

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR Writ Petition(MD)No.35554 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.28209 & 28211 of 2025 1.Sheik Abdullah 2.V.C.Selvam .. Petitioners Vs 1.The Director of Muncipal Administration, No.27CF+C7F, MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028.

2.The Chairman cum District Collector, District Level Committee, Pudukottai.

3.S.Iyyappan ..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 pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Form 2 dated 24.11.2025 and quash the same as illegal consequently to direct the second respondent to select and nominate a person with disability as a member of the Aranthangi Municipality Council in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Rule 153-A of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023. 1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Leninkumar For Respondents : Mr.S.Kameswaran Govt. Advocate for R1 and R2 Mr.S.Balamurugan for R3

ORDER

The petitioners challenge the order passed by the first respondent, whereby the third respondent has been nominated as a member of the Aranthangi Municipal Council under sub-rule (5) of Rule 153-A of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023.

2. The petitioners claim that they are persons suffering from 80% disability and had submitted an application in Form No.1 seeking consideration for nomination as members of the Aranthangi Municipality. However, according to the petitioners, the first respondent, without considering their application, nominated the third respondent in violation of Rule 153 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that sub-rule (3) of Rule 153 clearly stipulates that applications for nomination as a member of the Council shall be invited by the Commissioner by way of 2/6

publication in two local daily newspapers, at least one of which shall be in the vernacular language having wide circulation within the Municipality. In the present case, the publication was made only in one daily newspaper. It was further submitted that the District Level Committee did not scrutinize the applications submitted by the petitioners and the third respondent in their presence, as allegedly required under Rule 4(b) of Rule 153-A. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the entire process culminating in the nomination of the third respondent stands vitiated for non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 153 of the said Rules.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the nomination of the third respondent has been made strictly in conformity with sub-rule (3) of Rule 153 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023 and does not warrant any interference by this Court.

5. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents have been duly considered.

3/6

6. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 153 stipulates that applications shall be invited by the Commissioner by publication in two daily newspapers. In the present case, though it is alleged that publication was made only in one newspaper, the petitioners had admittedly submitted their applications pursuant to the said publication. Therefore, having participated in the selection process, the petitioners cannot now be permitted to contend that the entire process stands vitiated on the ground of non-compliance with sub-rule (3) of Rule 153 as no prejudice was caused to them.

7. Sub-rule (4)(b) of Rule 153-A provides that the District Level Committee shall scrutinize the applications received, finalize the eligible candidates based on their qualifications and services rendered to society, and forward the names of the recommended candidates to the Director. However, the said provision does not stipulate that such scrutiny of applications must be conducted in the presence of the applicants. In the absence of any statutory mandate requiring the scrutiny to be carried out in the presence of the petitioners or the third respondent, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted.

4/6

8. In view of the above, this Court finds that the nomination of the third respondent has been made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 153 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023 and does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 03.03.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes skn To 1.The Director of Muncipal Administration, No.27CF+C7F, MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028.

2.The Chairman cum District Collector, District Level Committee, Pudukottai.

5/6

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

skn Writ Petition(MD)No.35554 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.28209 & 28211 of 2025 03.03.2026 6/6