W.A.No.1732 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.07.2026 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.A.No.1732 of 2026 AND C.M.P.No.10524 of 2026 M.Loganayaki W/o.Late.B.Munusamy No.16/49, Karunanidhi Street Anna Nagar, Korukkupet Chennai-600 021 Appellant(s) Vs 1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu Social Welfare Department St. George Fort, Chennai-600 009 2.The Zonal Officer Tondairpet, Mandala Maruthuvar Officer Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Memorial Marriage Financial scheme No.88, Kattivakkam High Road Meenambal Nagar, Chennai-21 Respondent(s) PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 18.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3840 of 2026. __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1732 of 2026 For Appellant(s) : Mr. G.Krishnamurthy For Respondent(s) : Mr. T.Gowthaman Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.K.Kumaran Government Pleader for RR1 & 2 JUDGMENT (Delivered by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) This intra-Court appeal assails the order of the writ Court dated 18.03.2026 passed in W.P.No.3840 of 2026, whereby the appellant‘s claim seeking financial assistance under the Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Memorial Marriage Financial Scheme (in short “the Scheme”), in compliance with the sanction order dated 17.12.2020, came to be rejected. 2.1.The brief facts of the case are that the appellant applied for benefits under the Scheme on 07.09.2020 for the marriage of her daughter Manjula scheduled for 18.10.2020. The application was acknowledged by the first respondent and after perusal of the required documents, it is claimed that the first respondent, by an order dated 17.12.2020, sanctioned a sum of Rs.50,000/- payable to the appellant. __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1732 of 2026 2.2. However, when it was enquired with the office of the first respondent, the appellant was only informed that a function would be conducted in the presence of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, where they would distribute the cheque and one sovereign of gold under the Scheme. But, all of a sudden, the respondents citing that the Scheme is over, had refused to grant the benefits which resulted in filing of the writ petition. 2.3. The learned single Judge by placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in The Commissioner and Others v. Sithammal and another (W.A.No.2993 of 2023 decided on 21.11.2025), observed that Court cannot extend the scope of a Scheme after its abolition and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the appellant had preferred the present appeal. 3. Mr.G.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the learned single Judge erroneously relied on the decision in Sithammal’s case (supra), where the application itself was not considered prior to the abolition of scheme, whereas in the present case the benefits under the Scheme had already been sanctioned in favour of the appellant prior to its closure and, therefore, the said __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1732 of 2026 decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. He further submitted that once sanction is accorded, the funds would be available, and the same would be open to misuse by the authorities if they are not disbursed to the actual beneficiaries and therefore, he sought for interference of this Court. 4. Per contra, Mr.T.Gowthaman, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, submitted that the Scheme itself came to be abolished in the year 2022 and, in fact, a policy decision was taken to transform the Scheme into Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Higher Education Assurance Scheme (in short “Education Assurance Scheme”) to promote women empowerment. He further submitted that once the Scheme got lapsed, the entire funds under the Scheme would automatically revert to the treasury, where, in turn, the funds would be provided for the modified new Education Assurance Scheme. Therefore, the apprehension of the appellant that the funds would be misused is totally misplaced. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General, drawing the attention of this Court to the alleged sanction claimed by the appellant, submitted that the document is a plain letter titled as public sanction order dated __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1732 of 2026 17.12.2020, which does not contain the signature of the competent authority or signature of any person for that matter and this cannot be a valid sanction order at all, over which the appellant could place reliance for making a claim. He further submitted that the issues raised herein have already been settled by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court and the learned single Judge had applied the same and rightly dismissed the writ petition, which needs no interference. 6. Heard the rival submissions and considered the materials available on record. 7. The issue regarding grant of benefits under the lapsed Marriage Financial Scheme after the introduction of Education Assurance Scheme came up for consideration before this Court, in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu and Others v. J.Praveena (2026 SCC OnLine Mad 3102) and this Court, by order dated 26.03.2026, allowed the appeal holding that the benefit of a non- extant policy could not be extended to the applicant. The relevant portion of the decision is extracted hereunder: “7. Any policy formed by the Government is based on __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1732 of 2026 consideration of various factors and law, including constraints based on its resources. It is also based on expert opinion. It would be perilous if courts are asked to test the utility, beneficial effect of the policy or its appraisal based on facts set out in affidavits. The Court should dissuade from entering into this fiefdom which belongs to the executive. 8. In the case on hand, the respondent has not challenged the decision taken by the government to restructure the scheme. The Apex Court, while considering a policy decision to terminate a benefit that was extended previously, in Ritu Maheshwari v. Promotional Club (supra), held thus: “17. It is well established that when a policy decision like the closure or termination of a benefit available to a class of persons, is not challenged, the consequence of such closure (which is the impact on the pendency of those wishing to be considered) cannot ordinarily be subject matter of a grievance. What the club had was a right to be considered for allotment of the plots its applied for, so long as the old scheme subsisted. … … 19. In the absence of any ambiguity - in the law, and the scheme, the writ Petitioner club, in this Court's opinion could not have insisted that after the closure of the old scheme (which went unchallenged by it), nevertheless, it had a right to allotment. In holding otherwise, and proceeding to direct Noida to consider the club's applications the impugned judgment erred in law.” [emphasis supplied] 9. In the case on hand, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to grant benefit under a scheme, which no longer exists, runs athwart the decision of the Supreme Court, referred supra. __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1732 of 2026 10. Under identical circumstances, while considering the very same scheme, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the Commissioner and others v. Sithammal (supra), held thus: “6. The Government scheme is a policy decision and Court cannot extend the scope of the scheme for the purpose of considering the application submitted prior to the abolition, which would not fall under the realm of the powers of judicial review conferred under Article 226 of the Constitutional of India. Thus, the direction issued by the Writ Court to consider the representation would be of no assistance to the 1st respondent, since the scheme itself was abolished by the Government with effect from 18.02.2022 and it cannot be considered by the authorities as no such scheme was in force.” [emphasis supplied] 11. This Court in the Principal Secretary to Government and others v. S.Chitra and another (supra), while considering a similar issue raised based on the same scheme, held as under: “8. We are of the considered view that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge was not only beyond the scope of the writ petition but also amounts to substituting one executive policy for the other.” 12. In the instant case, the Government has taken a policy decision to remodel “Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Memorial Marriage Assistance Scheme” into “Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Higher Education Assurance Scheme” considering the low enrollment ratio of girl students from government schools in higher education and, according to the government, such policy decision was taken in order to enhance women empowerment. Nothing has been placed on record by the respondent to show that the __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1732 of 2026 restructuring of the old scheme was arbitrary. Moreover, it is not as if the respondent’s application has been solely rejected on unreasonable grounds. No financial sanction was given to all pending applications from the year 2018-2019 to 2021-2022. Therefore, no mala fides or discrimination can be alleged. 13. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge ought to have exercised judicial restraint, rather than extending the benefit of a non-extant policy to the respondent. We are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the learned Single Judge.” 8. The main plank of contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the aforesaid decision does not apply to the facts of the present case as the application was considered and sanction order was issued in the year 2020 itself, when the Scheme was in force. In this regard, heavy reliance is placed on the sanction order dated 17.12.2020. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, a bare perusal of the alleged sanction order dated 17.12.2020 placed in the typed set of papers reveals that the same does not contain the signature of the Divisional Medical Officer who had issued it, nor it contains signature of any other officer. The signature column remains blank. Such a document can by no means be construed as a valid sanction order and based on this document, the claim of the __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1732 of 2026 appellant for the grant of benefits under the Scheme that has lapsed, cannot be sustained. 9. Be that as it may, even though, according to the appellant, the benefit under the Scheme was sanctioned on 17.12.2020, the appellant maintained total silence till the entire Scheme got lapsed in the year 2022, which was transformed and remodeled as Education Assurance Scheme pursuant to a policy decision. 10. Even after the Scheme got lapsed in the year 2022, the appellant thought it fit to approach this Court only in the year 2026, four years after the lapse of the Scheme. The appellant cannot seek any benefits after a period of six years from date of alleged sanction, and more particularly, four years after the lapse of the Scheme. Under these circumstances, the very document relied on as a sanction order becomes doubtful. As held by this Court in the order extracted above, the policy decision was taken by the Government to enhance women empowerment and no challenge is made to the cancellation of the old Scheme by remodeling into a new Assurance Scheme. __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1732 of 2026 11. It is the next contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that since the sanction order was granted and funds were allotted, there is a possibility that the said funds could be misused by the respondents. This apprehension raised is totally misplaced and has to be rejected for the simple reason that when once a Scheme gets lapsed, the entire unutilised funds allocated towards the Scheme revert to the State treasury. Subsequently, fresh funds would be allocated and set apart exclusively for the newly remodeled scheme. 12. In such circumstances, we find no error or illegality in the order passed by the learned single Judge. There is no merit in the appeal and, accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 16.07.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No gya __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1732 of 2026 To 1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu Social Welfare Department St. George Fort, Chennai-600 009 2.The Zonal Officer Tondairpet, Mandala Maruthuvar Officer Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Memorial Marriage Financial scheme No.88, Kattivakkam High Road Meenambal Nagar, Chennai-21 __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1732 of 2026 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN, J. gya W.A.No.1732 of 2026 16 .07.2026 __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis