WP/14275/2026 of M.Babu Vs The Member secretary

W.P.No.14275 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.04.2026 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN WP No.14275 of 2026 and WMP N o .15516 of 2026 M.Babu Advocate, Room B, Door No. 348/160 Hussain Plaza, Thambu Chetty Street, Parrys Corner, Chennai – 600 001. Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 2. The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai – 600 003. 3. The Zonal Executive Engineer Zone IX, 4th Cross street, Lake View road, Chennai – 600 034. ______________ Page 1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14275 of 2026 4. The Proprietor Hotel Manjal, Door No.6/9 Kasthuri Estate, 3rd Street, Poes Garden, Mylapore, Chennai. Respondent(s) PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of In dia seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respond ents 1 to 3 herein to take action against the 4th respondent hotel /restaurant on the basis of the communication sent by the 1st respond ent dated 2.09.2025 at the earliest point of time as may be fixed by this court. For Petitioner(s): Mr. J.Pothiraj For Respondent(s):Mrs.P.Veena Suresh Standing Counsel for R1 Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu Standing Counsel for R2 and R3 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) This petition, styled as public interest litigation, has been filed by a practising advocate seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 herein to take a ction against the fourth respondent hotel/restaurant on the ba sis of ______________ Page 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14275 of 2026 the communication sent by the first respondent dated 02.09.2025 at the earliest point of time as may be fix ed by this court. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent/restaurant is functioning illegally in a res idential area without obtaining any license and without proper parking area for the visitors. In this regard, the petitioner has sent a representation to the first respondent and the first re spondent, by proceedings dated 2.9.2025, addressed to respondent Nos.2 and 3, directed the said authorities to examine the veracity of the complaint and take necessary enforcement action. It is alleged that till date no action has been taken against the fourth respondent/restaurant till date. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. It is admitted that seeking identical relief the pe titioner herein had earlier filed W.P.No.45310 of 2025. Thi s Court, by order dated 25.11.2025, disposed of the writ petition by directing ______________ Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14275 of 2026 the local authority to take those measures as may be ne cessary to manage and regulate traffic movement, parking, etc. 4. On a perusal of the prayers made in W.P.No.45310 of 2025 and the present writ petition, we are of the view t hat both are identical in nature. The present writ petition is, therefore, hit by the principle of res judicata. It is well settled proposition in law that principle of res judicata applies to writ proceedings, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh1; Virudhuttagar Steel Rolling Mills Limited v. Government of Madras 2, and Shankara Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. M. Prabhakar3. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition and the same is lia ble to be dismissed. 5. If the court's earlier order has not been acted upon, the petitioner’s recourse lies elsewhere. Filing a new peti tion for the same relief is not the correct procedure. 1 AIR 1961 SC 1457 2 AIR 1968 SC 1196 3 (2011) 5 SCC 607 ______________ Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14275 of 2026 6. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shal l be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim application s tands closed. We make it clear that this order shall not come in the way of the respondent authorities considering the complaint of the petitioner in accordance with law. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 16.04.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sasi To: 1. The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 2. The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai – 600 003. 3. The Zonal Executive Engineer Zone IX, 4th Cross street, Lake View road, Chennai – 600 034. ______________ Page 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14275 of 2026 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J. (sasi) WP No.14275 of 2026 16.04.2026 ______________ Page 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis