Writ petition is non-maintainable where the petitioner has alternative civil remedies and an allotment order has been issued.

The petitioner, Revathi Elumalai, challenged an eviction notice dated 09.01.2026 issued by the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board (the "Board").

The Board issued the notice to remove encroachments that were obstructing public pathways and to facilitate the demolition of old structures for the construction of a new block.

The petitioner argued that she held a 1985 civil court decree (O.S. No. 9354/1981) in her favor regarding the property and had initiated execution proceedings.

The Board countered that the petitioner had already been found eligible for resettlement and an allotment order for a new tenement had been issued.

1. Whether a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus can be maintained to quash an eviction notice when the petitioner has already pursued alternative remedies through civil litigation.

2. Whether the writ petition is rendered infructuous if the respondent authorities have already granted the relief of allotment to the petitioner.

The court applied the principle of judicial economy and the doctrine of alternative remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It emphasizes that where a party has already invoked the jurisdiction of a Civil Court and initiated execution proceedings, a parallel writ petition regarding the same subject matter is not maintainable.

Furthermore, it relied on the administrative principle that if the grievance of the petitioner (securing housing/allotment) is satisfied through departmental action, the underlying cause of action for a writ ceases to exist.

The court analyzed the maintainability of the petition in light of the concurrent civil proceedings.

It noted that since the petitioner had already secured a decree from the XVIII Asst. City Civil Court and filed an execution petition, the High Court’s intervention under writ jurisdiction was procedurally inappropriate.

Furthermore, the court evaluated the Board's submission that the petitioner’s eligibility had been recognized and an allotment order was issued.

Applying these facts to the law, the court reasoned that the petitioner had no surviving grievance to be redressed via a writ, as the Board's move to provide an allotment order resolved the practical necessity of the litigation.

The court dismissed the Writ Petition and closed all connected miscellaneous petitions, citing the issuance of the allotment order by the Board as the primary reason for the lack of a continuing cause of action.

No orders as to costs were made.