THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR STATE GOVERNMENT PLEADER vs R.ARULDOSS — WA/1495/2026
Case under U/c 15 of Letters Patent Set Section 15. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 12th June 2026.
CNR: HCMA012175942025
e-Filing Number
10-09-2025
Filing Number
WA/146923/2025
Filing Date
10-09-2025
Registration No
WA/1495/2026
Registration Date
05-06-2026
Judge
Honourable The CHIEF JUSTICE , Honourable Mr.Justice G.ARUL MURUGAN
Coram
Honourable The CHIEF JUSTICE , Honourable Mr.Justice G.ARUL MURUGAN
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
General Miscellaneous ( 78 )
Judicial Branch
JUDICIALSECTION
Decision Date
12th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR STATE GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
Respondent(s)
R.ARULDOSS
PRADHAN MANTRI AWAS YOJANA URBAN
THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
Hearing History
Judge: Honourable The CHIEF JUSTICE , Honourable Mr.Justice G.ARUL MURUGAN
After Notice Cases
After Notice Cases
MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS
FOR ADMISSION - (WA)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 03-06-2026 | After Notice Cases |
| 21-04-2026 | After Notice Cases |
| 30-03-2026 | MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS |
| 12-06-2026 | FOR ADMISSION - (WA) |
Orders
The Madras High Court dismissed the government's appeal challenging an order requiring it to release Rs.1,70,000 in PMAY scheme subsidy to R. Aruldoss. The court found that PMAY benefits were already extended to Aruldoss before he constructed his house in 2015, and since the permission was never cancelled, he remained eligible for the sanctioned subsidy despite the administrative error in crediting the amount to a wrong account. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Madras High Court dismissed the government's appeal challenging an order requiring it to release Rs.1,70,000 in PMAY scheme subsidy to R. Aruldoss. The court found that PMAY benefits were already extended to Aruldoss before he constructed his house in 2015, and since the permission was never cancelled, he remained eligible for the sanctioned subsidy despite the administrative error in crediting the amount to a wrong account. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts