Sudalaimani Pichaimuthu v. The Member -Secretary

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) The petitioner has approached this court, under the banner of public interest, seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider his representation dated 03.11.2025 to act against the respondent Nos.3 and 4/Schools. He claims that the schools have put up unapproved buildings and violated building rules.

¶2The school management counters these allegations by submitting that the petitioner has a direct personal interest with the very land in question, having previously acted as a witness to the property's sale deeds. Furthermore, it is pointed out that the petitioner has already dragged them to court over the exact same claims in an earlier case, viz., W.P.No.50802 of 2025, making this a clear attempt to misuse the legal system to pursue a private grudge.

¶3Having heard the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers placed before us, this Court is convinced that the petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands.

¶4The documents submitted by the school management make it clear that the petitioner has a direct personal involvement in the school's land transactions. The records confirm that he signed as witness to the sale deeds for the property in question.

¶5That part, the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.50802 of 2025 raising the same grievances, of course seeking action by the educational authorities against the school management, and was already addressed by this court. Dragging the same institution back to court on identical grounds shows a clear intent to harass, rather than seek justice.

¶6Public interest litigation was created as a sanctuary for the vulnerable and a way to address genuine community wrongs. It was never meant to be used to settle private scores, advance personal interests or ventilate personal grievances. Putting forth a personal dispute in the disguise of public welfare is a misuse of the court's time and trust.

¶7For the reasons afore-cited, the petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the Tamil Nadu Advocates' Clerks Welfare Fund within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the matter may be listed before the court after two weeks. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)

20.07.2026 Index : : sasi To:

¶1The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.1, Gandhi Irwan Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶2The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Building, Chennai-600 003. THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

(sasi)

20.07.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.07.2026 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN Sudalaimani Pichaimuthu S/o.Pichaimuthu, No.20, Velunaikar Street, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.1, Gandhi Irwan Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 2. The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Building, Chennai-600 003. 3. The Sacred Heart Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Rep. by its Principal, Janet Abraham, No.11, Devaraj Nagar, 2nd Cross Street, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. 4. The Sacred Heart Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Rep. by its Principal, Dr.Rex Abraham, Loganathan Main St., Nehru Nagar, Nanmangalam, Chennai-600 129. Respondent(s) PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.11.2025 and to take proper action against the 3rd and 4th Respondents. For Petitioner(s): Mr.AGD Bala Kumar For Respondent(s):Mrs.P.Veena Suresh Standing Counsel for R1 Mr.Abishek Murthy Standing Counsel for R2 Mr.J.S.Arunkumar for R3 and R4