01Facts
The petitioners operated shops in Madurai Corporation’s Anna Bus Stand premises. After the Corporation Council approved a resolution on 24 August 2026 to transfer land at the site to Government Rajaji Hospital for an Integrated Regional Cancer Centre and Critical Care Centre, the petitioners objected that no alternative accommodation or rehabilitation had been provided for the shopkeepers and their employees.
¶ 2–3They filed a statutory appeal under Rule 164 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023, before the Director of Municipal Administration on 5 September 2026, and sought a writ directing its disposal.
¶ 1, 3The Court noted that three months had not elapsed from the resolution and that the petitioners should instead approach the Madurai Corporation Commissioner.
¶ 602Issues
i.1. Whether the Director of Municipal Administration should be directed to dispose of the petitioners’ statutory appeal against the Corporation Council’s resolution.
¶ 1, 3ii.2. Whether, before expiry of three months from the resolution, the petitioners should instead make a representation to the Corporation Commissioner for consideration.
¶ 6–703Law Applied
The petitioners invoked Rule 164 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023, as the basis for their statutory appeal.
¶ 3The Court proceeded on the basis that, as three months had not elapsed from the Council’s resolution, the power to modify it remained with the Council, and the petitioners should approach the Corporation Commissioner; it directed the Commissioner to consider a fresh representation and pass appropriate orders within two weeks of receiving the Court’s order.
¶ 6–704Reasoning
The Court did not direct the appellate authority to decide the appeal. It considered the short period since the Council passed the resolution and concluded that the petitioners should first seek relief from the Corporation Commissioner, rather than the Director of Municipal Administration.
¶ 6Accordingly, it directed the petitioners to make a fresh representation to the Commissioner and required the Commissioner to consider it and pass appropriate orders within two weeks of receipt of a copy of the order.
¶ 705Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioners to make a fresh representation to the third respondent, the Madurai Corporation Commissioner, who must consider it and pass appropriate orders within two weeks of receiving a copy of the order.
¶ 7–8No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
¶ 8Original Court PDF
S.Saravanan,vsThe Director of Municipal Administration,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
