Madras High Court
WP/28481/2022 of S.C.Udhayakumar Vs The Commissioner of Municipal Administration on 16 October 2026
WP No. 28481 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 28481 of 2022
CNR: {HCMA011665722022}
S.C.Udhayakumar
S/o.Chengalappa, No.289, Thalayatham Bazaar, Gudiyatham, Vellore District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Commissioner of Municipal
Administration
No.75, Urban Administrative Building,
Santhome High Road, MRC Nagar, Raja
Annamalaipuram, Chennai- 600 028.
2. The Commissioner
Gudiyatham Municipality, Gudiyatham ,
Vellore District.
3. Chandramohan
Revenue Inspector, Gudiyatham Municipality, Gudiyatham , Vellore District.
..Respondent(s)
Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to take suitable departmental action as against the third respondent by considering the petitioners representation dated 26.08.2022.
For Petitioner(s):
C.Munusamy
V.Suguna-ms/2276/2012
M.Sudha-ms/2581/2012
For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi, For R1 And R2.
M/s. V. Karthikeyan, S. Sivasubramani For R3
WP No. 28481 of 2022
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The writ petition is filed by the petitioner to direct the 1st respondent to consider his representation dated 26.08.2022, in which the petitioner has levelled the allegation of corruption against the 3rd respondent.
The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 strongly opposed the petitioner’s allegation and submitted that the present writ petition is an attempt to misdirect the action taken by the 2nd respondent. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that if at all the petitioner is aggrieved, he has to approach the appropriate Forum and not by filing the writ petition under Article 226.
The ground urged by the petitioner is that in order to change the assessment name, the 3rd respondent demanded bribe. However, the 2nd respondent would contend that the name would be changed only if there is no due with respect to the respective assessment number. In the case on hand, there is a property tax due by the petitioner and since the 3rd respondent demanded such tax due, the present complaint came to be lodged by the petitioner.
In such view of the plausible explanation given by the 2nd respondent, in the counter affidavit, this Court is of the view that such complaint against the 3rd respondent cannot be resolved in a Writ proceeding, by directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner’s representation. In
WP No. 28481 of 2022
view of the peculiar facts of the case, this Court is of the view that there are no ground made out to issue a mandamus to the respondents 1 and 2.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum to redress his grievance, if he is so advised. No costs. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AP To
1. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration No.75, Urban Administrative Building, Santhome High Road, MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai- 600 028.
2. The Commissioner Gudiyatham Municipality, Gudiyatham , Vellore District.
WP No. 28481 of 2022
C.KUMARAPPAN, J. AP WP No. 28481 of 2022 16-10-2026