W.P.No.8247 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.03.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD W.P.No.8247 of 2025 K.Manickam .. petitioner vs 1.The Chief Executive Office Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board Kuralagam, Chennai – 600 108. 2.The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Building, Chennai. … Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 08.11.2024 and 16.12.2024 made by the petitioner and provide an alternative place to run the shop 2024. For Petitioner : Mr.S.K.Bose For Respondents : Mr.S.Gopinathan, Standing counsel for R2. 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.8247 of 2025 O R D E R This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 08.11.2024 and 16.12.2024 made by the petitioner and to provide an alternative place to run the shop 2024. 2. The learned for the petitioner submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 have jointly constructed the project “Integrated Development of Munti- Modal Facility Complex with Kuralagam at Broadway” with a viability Gap funding of Rs.200.84 crore from Government of Tamil Nadi, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) and contribution of Rs.115.03 crore and a term loan of Rs.506.83 crore by Greater Chennai Corporation from Tamil Nadu Urban Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (TUFIDCO). He would submit that GO has been issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu vide GO.Ms.No.111 Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MC.I) Department dated 30.08.2024. He further submitted that the 2nd respondent had entered into a lease agreement with the 1st respondent for a period of 60 years. Since, the building is multi storied project which is going to commence, he wanted an 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.8247 of 2025 alternative place to be given by the 2nd respondent to run his tea stall. He further submitted that already the first respondent had granted more than 220 alternative sites for various shop keepers in that area, there are around 8 shops including the petitioner in the existing Khadi Complex. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/corporation would submit that the representation of the petitioner will be considered by the 2nd respondent on merits and in accordance with law, within a period stipulated by this Court. 4. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record. 5. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 08.11.2024 and 16.12.2024 on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders for providing an alternative place to the petitioner, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.8247 of 2025 6. With the above observation and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 11.03.2025 Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No tsh To 1.The Chief Executive Office Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board Kuralagam, Chennai – 600 108. 2.The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Building, Chennai. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.8247 of 2025 J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD , J. tsh W.P.No.8247 of 2025 11.03.2025 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis