Court Observation:* The court set aside the writ orders impugned, stating they were not in consonance with the principles settled by the Supreme Court of India. Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos. 854 and 1645 of 2015 were allowed, while Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos. 1549 and 1550 of 2015 and 1529 and 1530 of 2018 were dismissed.

[06/12, 09:09] Meta AI: *Madras High Court*

– *Case No.:* W.A.Nos. 854, 1549, 1550 & 1645 of 2015, and 1529 & 1530 of 2018
– *Judge:* HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM AND MR JUSTICE M.S. QADRI
– *Parties:*
– Appellant: Chennai Metro Rail Limited, B.M. Purnachandran, and Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
– Respondent: The Secretary to Government, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, and others
– *Date of Order:* 11.11.2025
– *Counsel:*
– For Appellant: Not Available
– For Respondent: Not Available
– *Court Observation:* The court set aside the writ orders impugned, stating they were not in consonance with the principles settled by the Supreme Court of India. Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos. 854 and 1645 of 2015 were allowed, while Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos. 1549 and 1550 of 2015 and 1529 and 1530 of 2018 were dismissed.
[06/12, 09:11] Meta AI: *Madras High Court*

– *Case No.:* W.A.Nos. 854, 1549, 1550 & 1645 of 2015, and 1529 & 1530 of 2018
– *Judge:* HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM AND MR JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
– *Parties:*
– Appellant: Chennai Metro Rail Limited, B.M. Purnachandran, and Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
– Respondent: The Secretary to Government, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, and others
– *Date of Order:* 11.11.2025
– *Counsel:*
– For Appellant: Not Available
– For Respondent: Not Available
– *Court Observation:* The court set aside the writ orders impugned, stating they were not in consonance with the principles settled by the Supreme Court of India. Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos. 854 and 1645 of 2015 were allowed, while Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos. 1549 and 1550 of 2015 and 1529 and 1530 of 2018 were dismissed.