Madras High CourtAdministrative and Public LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

Madurai HC Tells Anna Bus Stand Shopkeepers To Reapply Over Cancer Centre Site, Directs Commissioner To Decide Within 2 Weeks Of Order Receipt

S.Saravanan,v.The Director of Municipal Administration,

Madurai HC Tells Anna Bus Stand Shopkeepers To Reapply Over Cancer Centre Site, Directs Commissioner To Decide Within 2 Weeks Of Order Receipt. S.Saravanan, vs The Director of Municipal Administration,. Madras High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Director of Municipal Administration should be directed to dispose of the petitioners’ statutory appeal against the Corporation Council’s resolution.

The court held

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.

It also directed

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

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.

¶ 2–3

They 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, 3

The Court noted that three months had not elapsed from the resolution and that the petitioners should instead approach the Madurai Corporation Commissioner.

¶ 6

02Issues

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, 3

ii.2. Whether, before expiry of three months from the resolution, the petitioners should instead make a representation to the Corporation Commissioner for consideration.

¶ 6–7

03Law Applied

The petitioners invoked Rule 164 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023, as the basis for their statutory appeal.

¶ 3

The 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.

¶ 6–7

04Reasoning

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.

¶ 6

Accordingly, 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.

¶ 7

05Holding

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.

¶ 7–8

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

¶ 8
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

S.Saravanan,vsThe Director of Municipal Administration,

Madras High Court · October 29, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment