Land/ building /THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR 
W. P.No.18898 of 2025and
W.M.P.Nos.21172 and 21176 of 2025
R.Rajkumar S/o.Rajagopalan …Petitioner
vs.
1. The Assistant Divisional Engineer (H) & (CM)
State Highways Department
Tambaram Sub Division
Tambaram – 600 045
2. Mr.Anandan
The Assistant Divisional Engineer (H) & (CM)
State Highways Department
Tambaram Sub Division Tambaram – 600 045
3. The Commissioner
Kundrathur Municipality
No.1, Lalachatram Road
Kundrathur, Chennai – 600 069
4. The Assistant Executive Engineer
TANGEDCO
Kundrathoor Division Kanjipuram District … Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide his impugned proceedings in jhf;fPJ vz; 63-Mf;fpukpg;g[-2025-,epc dated 02.05.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to restore the construction made in Survey No.4/1 situated at Kundrathur-Pallavaram Main Road, Kundrathur, Kundrathur Taluk, Kancheepuram District and pay the appropriate compensation as fixed by this Court within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran and Mr. I Calvin Jones of M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran
Additional Advocate General
assisted / instructed by
Mr.T.K.Saravanan
Additional Govt. Pleader for R1 & R2 and
Mr.Jai Venkatesh, Standing counsel for R4
Mr.P.Srinivas for R3
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.]
This order will now dispose of the captioned ‘Writ Petition’ [‘WP’ for the sake of brevity] and captioned ‘Writ Miscellaneous Petitions’ [‘WMPs’ for the sake of brevity] thereat.
2. The proceedings/orders made by this Court in the previous listings, more particularly, the listings on 05.06.2025, 19.06.2025 and 17.07.2025 are as follows:
‘Proceedings made on 05.06.2025
W.P. No.18898 of 2025
and
W.M.P. Nos.21172 and 21176 of 2025 in W.P.No.18898 of 2025
M.SUNDAR,J., and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
(Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.)
Mr.H.Mohammed Imran of M/s.Ajmal Associates (Law Firm), learned counsel for writ petitioner is before us on the VC (Video Conferencing) platform and Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional
Government Pleader for R1 to R3 is before us in physical Court. To be
noted, this is a hybrid hearing, which is a regular/routine/daily feature in this Court.
2. Mr.H.Mohammed Imran, learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that a ‘notice dated 02.05.2025 bearing reference jhf;fPJ vz;/63-Mf;fpukpg;g[-2025-,epc’ (hereinafter ‘impugned notice’ for the sake of convenience and clarity) was issued by R1 [Assistant Divisional Engineer (H) and (CM), State Highways Department, Tambaram Sub
Division, Tambaram] purportedly under Section 28(2)(ii) of ‘The Tamil
Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (Tamil Nadu Act 34 of 2002)’ [hereinafter ‘said Act’ for the sake of convenience and clarity] though it does not state with specificity it is a Show Cause Notice (SCN), noticee/writ petitioner construed the same as SCN and sent a detailed reply dated 07.05.2025 which has been duly received by R1 on 09.05.2025 but without passing final orders, writ petitioner has been dispossessed, is learned counsel’s further say.
3. Issue notice to respondents.
4. Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for all four respondents and requests for a short accommodation to get instructions on final orders (to be noted final orders vide proviso to Section 28(2)(ii) of said Act) and revert to this Court. Request acceded to.
5. List under the cause list caption ‘NOTICE REGARDING ADMISSION’ in the Admission Board i.e., Motion List a fortnight hence.
6. List on 19.06.2025.
(M.S.J.) (H.C.J.)
05.06.2025′
‘Proceedings made on 19.06.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.P.No.18898 of 2025 and
W.M.P. Nos.21172 and 21176 of 2025
R.Rajkumar … Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Assistant Divisional Engineer (H) & (CM),
State Highways Department, Tambaram Sub Division, Tambaram – 600 045.
2.Mr.Anandan,
The Assistant Divisional Engineer (H) & (CM),
State Highways Department, Tambaram Sub Division, Tambaram – 600 045.
3.The Commissioner,
Kundrathur Municipality,
No.1, Lalachatram Road,
Kundrathur, Chennai – 600 069.
4.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Kundrathur Division,
Kanchipuram District. … Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran for Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan,
Additional Government Pleader for R1 and R2 Mr.P.Srinivas for R3
Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh,
Standing Counsel for R4
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,]
Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 05.06.2025 which reads as follows:
‘W.P. No.18898 of 2025 and
W.M.P. Nos.21172 and 21176 of 2025 in W.P.No.18898 of 2025
M.SUNDAR,J.,
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
(Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.)
Mr.H.Mohammed Imran of M/s.Ajmal Associates (Law
Firm), learned counsel for writ petitioner is before us on the VC (Video Conferencing) platform and Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned
Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3 is before us in physical Court. To be noted, this is a hybrid hearing, which is a regular/routine/daily feature in this Court.
2. Mr.H.Mohammed Imran, learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that a ‘notice dated 02.05.2025 bearing reference jhf;fPJ vz;/63-Mf;fpukpg;g[-2025-,epc’ (hereinafter ‘impugned notice’ for the sake of convenience and clarity) was issued by R1 [Assistant Divisional Engineer (H) and (CM), State Highways Department, Tambaram Sub Division, Tambaram] purportedly under Section 28(2)(ii) of ‘The Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (Tamil Nadu Act 34 of 2002)’ [hereinafter ‘said Act’ for the sake of convenience and clarity] though it does not state with specificity it is a Show Cause Notice (SCN), noticee/writ petitioner construed the same as SCN and sent a detailed reply dated 07.05.2025 which has been duly received by R1 on 09.05.2025 but without passing final orders, writ petitioner has been dispossessed, is learned counsel’s further say.
3. Issue notice to respondents.
4. Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for all four respondents and requests for a short accommodation to get instructions on final orders (to be noted final orders vide proviso to Section 28(2)(ii) of said Act) and revert to this Court. Request acceded to.
5. List under the cause list caption ‘NOTICE REGARDING ADMISSION’ in the Admission Board i.e., Motion List a fortnight hence.
6. List on 19.06.2025.’
2. Today, Mr.H.Mohammed Imran of M/s.Ajmal Associates (Law
Firm), learned counsel for writ petitioner is before us on the VC (Video
Conferencing) platform. Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader for R1 and R2 and Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel for R3 are before us in physical Court (to be noted, this is a hybrid hearing, which is a regular/routine/daily feature in this Court). Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh, learned standing counsel accepts notice for R4 and Mr.
T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader represents Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh, learned counsel for R4 also.
3. Adverting to earlier proceedings more particularly paragraph 4 thereat, learned State counsel submits that final orders vide proviso to Section 28(2)(ii) of ‘The Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (Tamil Nadu Act 34 of 2002)’ [hereinafter ‘said Act’ for the sake of convenience and clarity] have not been made as of today. Proceedings for making final orders can go on but final orders shall not be made without leave of this Court. The reason is this Court is informed that post impugned notice, notwithstanding writ petitioners’ reply dated 07.05.2025 which has been duly received by R1 on 09.05.2025, the structure put up by writ petitioner (auto repair/service garage) in ‘land admeasuring 1787.50 sq.ft. or thereabouts in Survey No.4/1B (as per Patta No.652, Survey No.4/1 part) in 85, Kundrathur Village, Sriperumpudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District’ (hereinafter ‘said land’ for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity) has been demolished completely by R1, his superior and others on 14.05.2025.
4. Learned counsel for writ petitioner has drawn our attention to a patta issued by revenue authorities (signed on 19.02.2018 in favour of one Mr.V.Kumaresan, S/o.Mr.Valvangunadar) from whom the writ petitioner has purchased said land in and vide sale deed dated 03.10.2023 registered as Document No.19649/2023 on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Kundrathur.
5. We direct R1 [Assistant Divisional Engineer (H) & (CM),
State Highways Department, Tambaram Sub Division, Tambaram – 600
045] to file a report explaining the action of demolition on 14.05.2025 (a) without issuing show cause notice, (b) though notice dated 02.05.2025 has been construed as show cause notice, writ petitioner has sent reply dated 07.05.2025 which has been duly received by R1 on 09.05.2025 (writ petitioner has inter-alia contended that the said land is a patta land) and (c) without passing orders in accordance with proviso to Section 28(2)(ii) of said Act.
6. Section 28 of said Act in its entirety reads as follows:
’28. Prevention of encroachment – (1) The Highways
Authority or any person authorised by it in this behalf shall, at such time as may be considered necessary, conduct such checks and periodical inspection of the highway boundaries, with the view to ensure the prevention of unauthorised encroachment and the removal of such encroachment.
(2) The Highways authority or any person authorised by it in this behalf, may–
(i) remove, without any notice, any movable temporary structure, enclosure, stall, booth, any article whatsoever hawked, exposed or displayed for sale or any other thing whatsoever by way of encroaching the highway or in any area where the construction or development of a highway is undertaken or proposed to be undertaken.
(ii) remove any immovable structure, whether permanent or temporary in nature, encroaching the highway or in the area vested with Government under this Act, after issuing a show cause notice against such removal, returnable within a period of seven days from the date of receipt thereof:
Provided that any representation received within the time limit shall be considered by the authority or officer concerned before passing final orders.’
7. In ‘In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures’ reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291 Hon’ble Supreme Court has inter-alia emphasised the need to issue show cause notice, consider the reply to show cause notice and designated authority passing final orders, in cases of this nature.
8. To be noted, we are requisitioning a report from R1 inter-alia on the aforesaid points in the light of Section 28 of said Act and ‘In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures’ reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291. For the self same reason, we deem it appropriate to direct R1 to remain present in Court in the next listing.
9. List a fortnight hence. List on 03.07.2025.
(M.S.,J.) (H.C.,J.)
19.06.2025 ‘Proceedings made on 17.07.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.P.No.18898 of 2025 and W.M.P. Nos.21172 and 21176 of 2025
R. Rajkumar Petitioner
vs.
1. The Assistant Divisional Engineer (H) & (CM) State Highways Department
Tambaram Sub Division
Tambaram 600 045
2. Mr. Anandan
Assistant Divisional Engineer (H) & (CM)
State Highways Department
Tambaram Sub Division
Tambaram 600 045
3. The Commissioner
Kundrathur Municipality
No.1, Lalachatram Road
Kundrathur
Chennai 600 069
4. The Assistant Executive Engineer
TANGEDCO
Kundrathoor Division Kanjipuram District Respondents
For petitioner Mr. H. Mohammed Imran for M/s. Ajmal Associates (Law Firm)
For respondents Mr. J. Ravindran, Addl. Adv. Gen. assisted by Mr. T.K. Saravanan
Addl. Govt. Pleader ORDER
[made by M.SUNDAR, J.]
Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listings.
2. Today, Mr. H. Mohammed Imran, learned counsel representing M/s. Ajmal Associates (Law Firm), learned counsel on record for writ petitioner, is before us on the video conferencing (VC) platform (To be noted, this is a hybrid hearing which is a regular/routine/daily feature in this Court). Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the State led by Mr. J. Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel and Additional Advocate General, is before us in the physical Court.
3. The earlier proceedings and more particularly, paragraph 5 of our proceedings dated 19.06.2025 are being examined. In the course of this, what pops up is the genuineness of patta and a scanned reproduction of the patta as placed before us by the writ petitioner is as follows:
4. Learned Additional Advocate General submits, on instructions, that the aforesaid patta is not genuine and correspondence between Highways authorities and jurisdictional Tahsildar in this regard has also been placed before us.
5. In the light of the narrative thus far, in the next listing, inter alia the following shall be done:
i. Writ petitioner shall produce the original patta ii. State shall produce UDR ‘A’ Register.
6. In the light of the proceedings today, the presence of Mr.P.Rajendra Dass, Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways, Tambaram, is dispensed with for the present/until further orders.
7. List on 24.07.2025.
(M.S., J.) (H.C., J.)
17.07.2025′
3. The aforesaid proceedings / orders shall be now read as integral part and parcel of this order. This also means that the short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the earlier proceedings / orders shall continue to be used in the instant order also.
4. Today, Mr.H.Mohammed Imran of M/s.Ajmal Associates (Law
Firm) was before us on the VC platform and Mr.I. Calvin Jones, also of
M/s.Ajmal Associates (Law Firm) was before us (with the writ petitioner) in the physical Court on behalf of the writ petitioner (to be noted, this is a hybrid hearing, which is a regular/routine/daily feature in this Court). Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Senior counsel and Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader for Respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.Jai Venkatesh, learned Standing counsel for R4 are before us. Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Standing counsel for Kundrathur Municipality is before us on behalf of R3.
5. Impugned notice has been issued by R1 under Section 28 of said Act. Section 28 of said Act (as amended on and with effect from 07.03.2024) vide the Tamil Nadu Highways (Amendment) Act, 2024 (Act 11 of 2024) reads as follows:
’28. Prevention of encroachment – (1) The Administrator or any person authorised by it in this behalf shall, at such time as may be considered necessary, conduct such checks and periodical inspection of the highway boundaries, with the view to ensure the prevention of unauthorised encroachment and the removal of such encroachment.
(2) The Administrator or any person authorised by it in this behalf, may–
(i) remove, without any notice, any movable temporary structure, enclosure, stall, booth, any article whatsoever hawked, exposed or displayed for sale or any other thing whatsoever by way of encroaching the highway or in any area where the construction or development of a highway is undertaken or proposed to be undertaken.
(ii) remove any immovable structure, whether permanent or
temporary in nature, encroaching the highway or in the area vested with Government under this Act, after issuing a show cause notice against such removal, returnable within a period of seven days from the date of receipt thereof:
Provided that any representation received within the time limit shall be considered by the authority or officer concerned before passing final orders.’
6. ‘Administrator’ is a defined term, the same having been defined vide Section 2(13) which reads as follows:
‘2.Definitions.-
(13) “Administrator’ means the officer appointed under sub-
Section (2) of Section 5.
7. Section 2(13) takes us to Section 5(2), which reads as follows:
‘5. Appointment of [Administrator]-
(1) ….
(2) The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department of the Government in-charge of each division, shall be the [Administrator] for that
Division.’
8. Therefore, the Divisional Engineer of the Highways Department of the Government, in charge of each Division, shall be the ‘Administrator’ for that Division.
9. Section 28 of said Act, more particularly, sub-section (2) thereat makes it clear that a notice under Section 28 can be issued either by the ‘Administrator’ or by ‘any person authorised by Administrator’ in this behalf. In the case on hand, Administrator has authorized R1 and the authorisation as placed before us is as follows:
10. Therefore, no jurisdictional issue arises qua impugned notice.
11. The impugned notice as placed before us is as follows:
12. We find from the impugned notice that two points are of relevance and they are:
(i) Survey number has not been mentioned; ii) While it talks about Poonamallee-KundrathurPallavaram Road and mentions kilometer, kilometer has been left blank.
13. The above means that the impugned notice lacks clarity and more particularly, it lacks specificity. We make it clear that in the days to come, notices under Section 28 of said Act or under any provision akin to Section 28 of said Act in other statutes, which provide for alleged encroachers being provided with an opportunity, should set out the land details accurately with clarity and specificity i.e.,details such as survey number, extent etc., (so that the noticee can readily localise the land) should be mentioned with clarity. However, in this case, there is reason to get past the above lack of clarity and specificity as writ petitioner/noticee has promptly sent a detailed reply/representation dated 07.05.2025 wherein the writ petitioner has stated with absolute clarity and specificity the land over which he is staking his claim. The writ petitioner has mentioned that the land over which he is staking his claim is in S.No.4/1B (Old S.No.4/1) admeausring 3575 sq.ft, he having purchased vide two sale deeds, both dated 03.10.2023 bearing Document Nos.19648 of 2023 and 19649 of 2023 on the file of SubRegistrar, Kundrathur from one Thiru.V.Kumaresan, son of Thiru.
Vaazhvaangu Nadar. Therefore, from hereon and henceforth, this land shall be referred to as ‘petitioner’s said land’.
14. The response/representation sent by writ petitioner as placed before as is as follows:
15. The above representation has been duly received by the Office of
R1 on 09.05.2025.
16. Thereafter, a careful reading of Section 28 and the mechanism put in place thereat, makes it clear that the ‘Authority or Officer concerned’ (R1 in this case) should have considered the 07.05.2025 representation and passed ‘final orders’. This is vide proviso to Section 28(2)(ii) of said Act. This has admittedly not been done. Therefore, without passing of ‘final orders’ by ‘Authority or Officer concerned’, there has been demolition /dispossession qua shed / structures in petitioner’s said land in 14.05.2025.
17. The above should necessarily be avoided in days to come as it would clearly mean that the procedure laid down for providing an opportunity to alleged encroachers will stand bypassed.
18. However, in the case on hand (making it clear that this will not be treated as a precedent), as the original revenue records have been placed before us and as it comes to light that the provisional patta (njhuha gl;lh) produced by the writ petitioner prima facie comes across as highly suspect, we make it clear that this is a prima facie view subject to the same being tested in a civil Court if the occasion arises about which there will be allusion elsewhere infra in this order.
19. This Court is of the considered view that calling upon R1 now to pass order (final orders) under proviso to Section 28 (2)(ii) of said Act would not serve anybody’s purpose and it would only be an exercise in futility. Therefore, we are of the considered view that this would be an appropriate case to direct State to pay nominal damages leaving open the rights of the writ petitioner to claim actual damages in a civil Court so advised and so desired.
20. There is one more reason for this Court taking this view in this case. Pursuant to our 17.07.2025 order, more particularly paragraph 5 thereat, the writ petitioner counsel submitted that he is unable to produce the original patta. Learned counsel for writ petitioner, on the contrary, has produced before us a Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds (equitable mortgage) in favour of Canara Bank wherein there is an adumbration of documents deposited by the writ petitioner (as part of the mortgage) and document which figures as Serial No.7 reads as follows:
This means that writ petitioner also has not produced the original patta before us. This Court is informed that pattas are normally not issued with photographs but we leave that question open.
21. The original records produced by the State are Natham Adangal and ‘A’ Register for 30, Kundrathur Village, Kundrathur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. A careful perusal of the original Registers / records makes it clear that writ petitioner’s said land has been classified as ‘khtl;l rhiy ‘ [District Road].
22. Therefore, at the risk of repetition, we reiterate that calling upon the Administrator or the Authority or officer concerned to now pass an order (final orders within the meaning of proviso to Section 28(2)(ii) of said Act) would certainly be an exercise in futility.
23. Before we write the operative portion of this order, we deem it appropriate to lay down the following guidelines:
(i) When notices akin to notice under Section 28 of said Act are issued (when we say notices akin to Section 28, we refer to notices under similar provisions in other statutes such as Section 128 of ‘the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 (Tamil Nadu Act 9 of 1999)’
{hereinafter ‘TNULB Act’ for the sake of brevity} etc.,;
(ii) The lands in which alleged encroachments are said to have been made should be described with clarity and specificity giving survey number, geographical location with accuracy to the extent possible etc., so that there is no difficulty for the noticees in localizing, identifying and understanding the lands with regard to
which the notices have been issued;
(iii) When notices akin to Section 28 are responded to by noticees by way of representation/response within the time limit prescribed in the statute, the same have to be duly considered by the Authority concerned and
orders have to be made.
(iii) Orders made in the aforesaid manner should be served on the noticees under due acknowledgment;
24. Ergo, the sequitur is, the following order is made:
i) R1 shall pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the writ petitioner within three weeks from today i.e., on or before 14.08.2025. It is open to the same being recovered by State from the officer who issued the impugned notice and who also caused demolition to be made;
ii) It is open to the writ petitioner to seek remedy in a civil Court against writ petitioner’s vendor Thiru.V.Kumaresan, son of Thiru. Vaazhvaangu Nadar and/or any other person concerned qua sale of writ petitioner’s said land to writ petitioner, be it declaratory or injunctive reliefs. In this regard, we make it clear that be it Thiru.V.Kumaresan or any other person who is proceeded against, will have all his/her rights and contentions preserved and this order will not impact his/her rights and contentions;
iii) It is also open to the writ petitioner to seek actual damages from the State by filing an appropriate civil suit . All rights of writ petitioner as well as State are left open in this regard;
iv) Drawing inspiration from Asma Lateef principle (Asma Lateef and another Vs. Shabbir Ahmad and others reported in (2024) 4 SCC 696), though Asma Lateef principle is regarding maintainability and grant of interim orders, we make it clear that what we have recorded is only a prima facie satisfaction regarding genuineness of the patta in the light of the original revenue records of State and therefore, civil Court upon being approached shall deal with the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law, untrammeled by the prima facie view expressed by this Court in the instant order, which is for the limited purpose of concluding the proceedings in the writ
jurisdiction.
Captioned main WP disposed of in the aforesaid manner with the aforesaid observation, directives and preservation of rights. Captioned WMPs thereat have become otiose and therefore, the same are closed. As regards costs, there is a directive in the operative portion regarding nominal damages and the same shall be treated as costs also.
(M.S.,J.) (H.C.,J.)
24.07.2025
(1/2)
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order gpa
P.S: Though captioned writ petition is disposed of, list under the cause list caption ‘FOR REPORTING COMPLIANCE’ on 18.08.2025 regarding sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph 24 supra.
To
1. The Assistant Divisional Engineer (H) & (CM)
State Highways Department
Tambaram Sub Division
Tambaram – 600 045
2. Mr.Anandan
The Assistant Divisional Engineer (H) & (CM)
State Highways Department
Tambaram Sub Division Tambaram – 600 045
3. The Commissioner
Kundrathur Municipality
No.1, Lalachatram Road
Kundrathur, Chennai – 600 069
4. The Assistant Executive Engineer
TANGEDCO
Kundrathoor Division
Kanjipuram District
M.SUNDAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
gpa W.P.No.18898 of 2025
24.07.2025
(1/2)
