Madras High Court Administrative and Public Law Property and Real Estate Law

Madras HC Directs Officials To Consider Ladies’ Hostel Owner’s Bid For Residential Tariffs After Hearing Within Six Weeks

By LawLens Team · Editorial and Research TeamDecided October 26, 2026Published 30 October 2026 at 2:55 pm IST2 min read

The LawLens card for this judgment

In brief

The question

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 27 August 2026 in light of the order in W.P. No. 10194 of 2025 and batch.

The court held

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s representation dated 27 August 2026, after affording her a personal hearing and in light of the order in W.P. No. 10194 of 2025 and batch, within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

It also directed

No costs were ordered.

01Facts

The petitioner sought reclassification of her property at No. 16/3, Krishna Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai, used as a ladies’ hostel, from commercial to residential tariffs for property tax, water charges and electricity charges.

pp. 3–4

She relied on the High Court’s order dated 7 November 2025 in W.P. No. 10194 of 2025 and batch, and submitted a representation to the authorities on 27 August 2026. As no decision had been made on that representation, she filed this writ petition seeking its consideration and consequential reclassification.

p. 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 27 August 2026 in light of the order in W.P. No. 10194 of 2025 and batch.

p. 3, 5

ii.2. Whether the petitioner should be afforded a personal hearing before the respondents decide the representation.

p. 5

03Law Applied

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

p. 2

The Court directed the authorities to decide the representation on its merits and in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner a personal hearing, and in light of the order dated 7 November 2025 in W.P. No. 10194 of 2025 and batch.

p. 5

04Reasoning

The Court considered the relief sought and, expressly without going into the merits, found it appropriate to require the respondents to address the petitioner’s pending representation.

p. 5

It directed that the decision be made after a personal hearing, on the merits and in accordance with law, with due regard to the cited 2025 order. The Court did not itself decide whether the hostel qualified for residential tariffs.

p. 5