Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
(8)The writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to participate in the tender as and when it is called
Provisions considered
Judgment
WP No. 26851 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23-07-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALAWP No. 26851 of 2025ANDWMP NO. 30186 OF 2025,WMP NO. 30187 OF 20251. S.ChandrammalPs/o. Late Sundra Rajan Market Shop, Shop No. 1 Indhira Gandhi Road, C Palavaram, ChennaiPetitioner(s)Vs1. The Chief Executive OfficerSt Thomas Mount Cum Pallavaram Cantoment Board, North Prade Road, St Thomas Mount, Chennai 600 016. Respondent(s)WMP No. 30186 of 20251. S.ChandrammalProject Implementation Unit Chennai 2 272A, Dr.Selvi Jayakumar Street GG Nagar, Nerkundram, ChennaiPetitioner(s)Vs https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 26851 of 20251. The Chief Executive OfficerSt Thomas Mount Cum Pallavaram Cantoment Board, North Prade Road, St Thomas Mount, Chennai 600 016. Respondent(s)WMP No. 30187 of 20251. S.ChandrammalProject Implementation Unit Chennai 2 272A, Dr.Selvi Jayakumar Street GG Nagar, Nerkundram, ChennaiPetitioner(s)Vs1.
The Chief Executive OfficerSt Thomas Mount Cum Pallavaram Cantoment Board, North Prade Road, St Thomas Mount, Chennai 600 016. Respondent(s)WP No. 26851 of 2025PRAYERWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to Call for records of the respondent impugned notice dated 02.07.2025 vide No. STM/REV/1313 AND QUASH the same.WMP No. 30186 of 2025PRAYERDispense with the production of the original impugned notice . STM/REV/1313 dated 02.07.2025 of the respondent. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 26851 of 2025WMP No. 30187 of 2025PRAYERTo stay all further proceedings of the original impugned notice no. STM/REV/1313 dated 02.07.2025 of the respondent pending disposal of the writ.WP No. 26851 of 2025 For Petitioner(s):Mr.S.VijayakumarFor Respondent(s):Mr.C.Mohan For Ms.A.Rexy Josephine Mary For M/s.King And Partridge For Respdt.ORDER(1)Mr.C.Mohan, learned Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
With the consent of both the learned counsels, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. (2)The writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order of the respondent dated 02.07.2025.(3)The petitioner states that the respondent Cantonment Board is having several Market shops in the Pallavaram Cantonment area. The respondent Cantonment Board allotted one such shop under annual license to the petitioner during the year 1980. The petitioner is running a tea stall in the shop allotter to her in Shop No.1, Market Shops, Indira Gandhi Road, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 26851 of 2025 Cantonment, Pallavaram, Chennai 600 043. The petitioner's husband was initially running the tea shop. After his demise, the petitioner continued to run the shop with periodical renewal of trade license. While so, on 11.06.2025, the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner, directing her to pay the outstanding license fees.
The petitioner complied with the said direction. The petitioner states that even though there was no arrears of rent, to her shock and surprise, the respondent issued the impugned notice directing the petitioner to vacate the shop, failing which it was stated that possession would be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Cantonments Act, 2006. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief. (4)The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent has no objection for the the petitioner continuing with the possession of the shop till the Tender Notification is issued. The learned counsel further submitted that once the Tender Notification is issued, the petitioner shall vacate the shop. Learned counsel submitted that it was open to the petitioner to participate in the Tender as and when it is called. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.
Operative part
26851 of 2025(5)The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner can continue with the possession of the shop till the Tender Notification is issued may be recorded and the petitioner may be granted liberty to participate in the tender proceedings. (6)Heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record. (7)The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner can occupy the shop till the issuance of the Tender Notification, is recorded. (8)The writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to participate in the tender as and when it is called. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall vacate the shop once the Tender Notification is issued by the respondent. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.23-07-2025APIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet: YesNeutral Citation: Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.
26851 of 2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 26851 of 2025WP No. 26851 of 2025To1.The Chief Executive OfficerSt Thomas Mount Cum Pallavaram Cantoment Board, North Prade Road, St Thomas Mount, Chennai 600 016.WMP No. 30186 of 2025To1.The Chief Executive OfficerSt Thomas Mount Cum Pallavaram Cantoment Board, North Prade Road, St Thomas Mount, Chennai 600 016.WMP No. 30187 of 2025To1.The Chief Executive OfficerSt Thomas Mount Cum Pallavaram Cantoment Board, North Prade Road, St Thomas Mount, Chennai 600 016. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 26851 of 2025N.MALA J.APWP No. 26851 of 202523-07-2025
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: (8)The writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to participate in the tender as and when it is called
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Cantonments Act, 2006.
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.