Madras High Court
Thiagesar Trust vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 December, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.12.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.25808 of 2025
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.20203, 20197 & 20199 of 2025
Thiagesar Trust,
Through its Authorised Signatory,
No.139-140, Kamarajar Salai,
Madurai. ...Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply,
Fort St. George,
Chennai.
2. The Madurai Corporation,
Through its Commissioner,
Madurai.
3. The Assistant Director/Member Secretary,
Madurai Local Planning Authority,
Madurai District Town and Country Planning Office,
Madurai. ...Respondents
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/12/2025 05:53:34 pm )
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the
impugned demand notice number BPP/115/2025/042/000255 dated 30/05/2025
issued by the 2nd respondent corporation and quash the same in so far as making
demand of the excess building license fees than what is required under law and
consequently direct the 2nd respondent to grant building plan approval for the
constructions by the petitioner college pursuant to the planning permit granted
by the 3rd respondent on 12/04/2025 in planning permission number 119 of
2025 based on the online application number SWP/BPA/379845/2024.
For Petitioner : M/s.V.R.Shanmuganathan
For Respondents : M/s.J.Ravindran
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
M/s.S.Devasena
Standing Counsel for R2
Mr.B.Saravanan
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 and R3
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the demand notice issued by the second respondent Corporation on 30.05.2025 wherein a sum of Rs.3,23,58,400/- has demanded as building license fee for the purpose of approving the building plan.
2/5https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/12/2025 05:53:34 pm )
2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the second respondent Corporation does not have any jurisdiction to levy such building license fee.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the second respondent submits that the impugned demand notice may be set aside and it may be remitted back to the file of the second respondent for fresh consideration.
4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, without prejudice to his contention already building license fee has been deposited. In case, if the second respondent arrives at a findings that they do not have any jurisdiction to levy such a building license fee, already paid amount shall be refunded.
5. In view of the submission made by either parties, the impugned demand notice is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the second respondent to consider it afresh including the jurisdiction of the second respondent to levy the building license fee. The refund of the already paid amount will depend upon the outcome of the proceedings.
3/5https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/12/2025 05:53:34 pm )
6. With the above said observations, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
16.12.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR To
1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Fort St. George, Chennai.
2. The Madurai Corporation, Through its Commissioner, Madurai.
3. The Assistant Director/Member Secretary, Madurai Local Planning Authority, Madurai District Town and Country Planning Office, Madurai.
4/5https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/12/2025 05:53:34 pm ) R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
RJR W.P.(MD)No.25808 of 2025 16.12.2025 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/12/2025 05:53:34 pm )