S.Jeyavel vs The Commissioner — WP(MD)/16303/2026

Case under Others Section others. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 16th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMD010764442026

Filing Number

WP(MD)/46541/2026

Filing Date

10-Jun-2026

Registration No

WP(MD)/16303/2026

Registration Date

12-Jun-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr.Justice Hemant Chandangoudar

Coram

Honourable Mr.Justice Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

Local Authorities ( 103 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

16-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

Last updated 17-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Others Section others

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.S.Jeyavel

    Adv. S.LOUIS, ,V.SADEESH KUMAR,I.ANTHONY PRABU,F.L.M.Gilda ,K.THIRUMAL SAMY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Commissioner

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr.Justice Hemant ChandangoudarView PDF

    The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed S. Jeyavel's writ petition and set aside the Thoothukudi Municipal Corporation's eviction notice dated 02.06.2026, which sought to vacate his leased shop for office expansion. The court found the notice arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of natural justice principles because it was issued without providing the petitioner a hearing opportunity during the subsistence of the lease period. The respondent was permitted to take fresh action only after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Jun-2026

    For Admission

    Honourable Mr.Justice Hemant Chandangoudar

  4. 10-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(MD)/16303/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed S. Jeyavel's writ petition and set aside the Thoothukudi Municipal Corporation's eviction notice dated 02.06.2026, which sought to vacate his leased shop for office expansion. The court found the notice arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of natural justice principles because it was issued without providing the petitioner a hearing opportunity during the subsistence of the lease period. The respondent was permitted to take fresh action only after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case