Madras High Court
I.Parimala Devi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 August, 2021
W.A(MD)No.1599 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
W.A(MD)No.1599 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)No.6808 of 2021
I.Parimala Devi ... Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to the Government,
Housing and Urban Development,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035.
3.The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer,
Madurai Housing Unit,
Tamil Nadu Housing Unit,
Madurai – 625 016. ... Respondents / Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order, dated 23.03.2021 made in W.P(MD)No.6422 of
2021 on the file of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.A(MD)No.1599 of 2021
For Appellant : Ms.K.Aswini Devi
For R – 1 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar
Standing Counsel for the Government
For RR 2 & 3 : Mr.Mahaboob Athiff
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M.DURAISWAMY,J.)
Challenging the order, dated 23.03.2021 passed in
W.P(MD)No.6422 of 2021, the writ petitioner has filed the above
Writ Appeal.
2.The appellant has filed the Writ Petition to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the
impugned order, dated 23.10.2020 on the file of the third
respondent and to quash the same and to direct the respondents
1 and 2 to allot the Plot in Plot No.H2/62 situated in
Ranimangammal Colony, Dindigul, Dindigul District to the petitioner
in accordance with the order passed by this Court in
W.P(MD)No.9085 of 2006, dated 02.06.2007 within a time frame.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1599 of 2021
3.It is the case of the petitioner that she was allotted a plot
under the discretionary quota reserved by the Government. The plot
was allotted against a social worker category, by proceedings, dated
21.06.2004. Thereafter, by order dated 14.08.2006, the
Government cancelled the allotment made to the petitioner.
Challenging the said order the petitioner along with other allottees,
whose allotment had also been cancelled, filed Writ Petitions in
W.P(MD)No.9085 of 2006 etc., batch and this Court, by order dated
02.06.2007, allowed the Writ Petitions observing that the principles
of natural justice have been violated. Subsequent to the passing of
the order in the Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.9085 of 2006 etc.,
batch, except the appellant, all other allottees, who were the
petitioners in the earlier batch of Writ Petitions, have been allotted
back their respective plots. When the appellant questioned the
authorities as to the discrimination in allotting the plots, the
authorities passed the impugned order, dated 23.10.2020, rejecting
the appellant's request. Challenging the said order, the appellant
has filed the Writ Petition.
4.The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the case
of both sides, dismissed the Writ Petition on three grounds. Firstly,
the learned Single Judge observed that the appellant preferred her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1599 of 2021
representation after a period of 12 years from the date of this Court
setting aside the earlier order in cancelling the allotment in the year
2009. So far as the delay is concerned, the appellant has not stated
anything in her affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition.
Secondly, the learned Single Judge found that the authorities have
also reasoned that subsequently a decision of this Court held that
granting of allotment under the discretionary quota was violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Pursuant to the order passed
by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.10780 of 2008, the
State Government issued a Government Order in
G.O.Ms.No.6, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated
07.01.2011, stating that no allotment would be made under any
quota. Thirdly, the learned Single Judge observed that allotments
made under the discretionary quota were also set aside by this
Court in subsequent decisions. Therefore, the request of the
appellant in the present circumstances cannot be considered in her
favour.
5.On a perusal of the order, dated 23.03.2021, impugned in
the Writ Petition, we do not find any infirmity to interfere with the
same. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration all these
aspects, rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. We do not find any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1599 of 2021
ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single
Judge. The Writ Appeal is devoid of merits and the same is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition
is closed.
[M.D.,J] [K.M.S.,J.]
19.08.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
ps
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall
be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant
concerned.
To
1.The Principal Secretary to the Government,
Rep. by the State of Tamil Nadu,
Housing and Urban Development,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1599 of 2021
M.DURAISWAMY,J.
and
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
ps
3.The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer,
Madurai Housing Unit,
Tamil Nadu Housing Unit,
Madurai – 625 016.
W.A(MD)No.1599 of 2021
19.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
