V.Suganthi v. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
Outcome
Disposed of
This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 9056 of 20256.The respondent is directed to consider the above said representation of the petitioner dated 01.07.2024, after giving due notice to the petitioner, opportunity of personal hearing and…
Judgment
WP No. 9056 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 17-03-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASADWP No. 9056 of 2025V.Suganthi,W/o.M.D.G.Vadivel, No.36, Gandhi Street, Athipattu, NCTPS Post, Chennai 600 120. Petitioner(s)VsChennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Represented by its Member Secretary, No.1 Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. Respondent(s)PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking for an issuance of writ of mandamus, to direct the respondent to refund the sum of Rs.4,66,310/- with 9 percentage interest from 21.09.2010 till the date of payment to the petitioner. For Petitioner(s):Mr M.Rajasekhar For Respondent(s):Mr.R.Thamarai Selvan 1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 9056 of 2025 Standing CounselORDERThe writ petition is filed to direct the respondent to refund the sum of Rs.4,66,310/- with 9% interest from 21.09.2010 till the date of payment to the petitioner.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was allotted shop under discretionary quota, which was subsequently cancelled and no possession was given. Since no shop was allotted, the petitioner seeks refund of Earned Money Deposit amount of Rs.4,66,310/- with 9% interest from 21.09.2010 till the date of payment to the petitioner.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has given representation dated 01.07.2024, to the respondent to refund the above said amount with 9% interest from 21.09.2010 and the same was not considered by the respondent till date.
Mr.R.Thamarai Selvan, the learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the sole respondent Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority.
Operative part
Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 9056 of 20256.The respondent is directed to consider the above said representation of the petitioner dated 01.07.2024, after giving due notice to the petitioner, opportunity of personal hearing and pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.7. This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. 17-03-2025vedaIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet: YesNeutral Citation: Yes/NoToChennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Represented by its Member Secretary, No.1 Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 9056 of 2025J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD., J.vedaWP No. 9056 of 2025 17-03-2025(4/5)4 of 4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.