Madras High Court
Tamizhavel Thiru P T Rajan ... vs The Commissioner on 26 November, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.P(MD)No.11256 of 2023 & batch
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.11256 of 2023
and
W.P.(MD)No.12462 of 2024
and
W.P.(MD)No.26267 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.9824 and 18243 of 2023
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.1044, 11048 and 16547 of 2024
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.20439 of 2025
W.P.(MD)No.11256 of 2023:-
Tamizhavel Thiru P T Rajan Commemoration Trust,
Rep by its Trustee, Ramesh Rajan,
Besant Road, Chokikulam,
Madurai - 625 002. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation,
Ariangar Anna Maligai, Thallakulam,
Madurai - 625 002.
2.The Chief Engineer,
Madurai Corporation,
Ariangar Anna Maligai,
Thallakulam, Madurai - 625 002.
1/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 07:49:13 pm )
W.P(MD)No.11256 of 2023 & batch
3.Cosmopolitan Club,
No.4, Race Course Road,
Madurai - 625 002. ... Respondents
(R3 is impleaded vide order dated 26.11.2025
in W.M.P.(MD)No.24475 of 2025 in
W.P.(MD)No.11256 of 2023 by GRSJ)
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records of the 1st and 2nd respondents vide Notice in
A8/09496/2018 dated 08.02.2023 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary
and unconstitutional.
For Petitioner : Mrs.Chitra Sampath, Senior Counsel,
For Mr.Amrith Bhargav.
For Respondents : Mr.Veerakathiravan,
Addl. Advocate General,
Assisted by Mrs.S.Devasena,
Standing Counsel for R1 & R2.
W.P.(MD)No.12462 of 2024:-
The Trustee,
Tamizhavel P. T. Rajan Commemoration Trust,
Besant Road, Chokikulam,
Madurai - 625 002. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Madurai Corporation,
Madurai - 625 002.
2/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 07:49:13 pm )
W.P(MD)No.11256 of 2023 & batch
2.The Assistant Commissioner /
Deputy Collector,
Madurai Corporation,
North Zone, Madurai.
3.The Deputy Revenue Officer,
Madurai Corporation,
North Zone, Madurai.
4.Cosmopolitan Club,
No.4, Race Course Road,
Madurai - 625 002. ... Respondents
(R4 is impleaded vide order dated 26.11.2025
in W.M.P.(MD)No.25519 of 2025 in
W.P.(MD)No.12462 of 2024 by GRSJ)
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the
2nd respondent Assistant Commissioner in Na.Ka.No.M2E1/00260/2024
dated 02.08.2024 and the consequential proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.M2E1/00260/2024 dated 06.08.2024, Quash the same and
further direct the 1st respondent Madurai Corporation to renew the Trade
License of the P.T.R.Mahal, Madurai run by the petitioner Trust for the
year 2023-2024.
(Prayer is amended vide order dated 13.08.2024 in
W.M.P(MD) No.16546 of 2024 in W.P.(MD) No.12462
of 2024 by NSKJ)
3/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 07:49:13 pm )
W.P(MD)No.11256 of 2023 & batch
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar,
For M/s.Isaac Chambers.
For Respondents : Mr.Veerakathiravan,
Addl. Advocate General,
Assisted by Mrs.S.Devasena,
Standing Counsel for R1 to R3.
W.P.(MD)No.26267 of 2025:-
Tamizhavel Thiru P T Rajan Commemoration Trust,
Rep by its Administrative Trustee,
N.Ramesh Rajan,
Having a registered office at
26, 2nd Street, East Abiramapuram,
Mylapore - 600 004. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Madurai Corporation,
Madurai - 625 002.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Zone 2 (North),
Panthayathidal Road,
Madurai Corporation,
Madurai 625 007.
3.The Deputy Revenue Officer,
Madurai Corporation,
North Zone,
Madurai 625 002.
4/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 07:49:13 pm )
W.P(MD)No.11256 of 2023 & batch
4.Tamizhavel Thiru P T Rajan Commemoration Trust,
Rep by its Administrative Trustee,
Indra, W/o.Subramnian,
10/2, Vllabai Road,
Chokkikulam, Tallakulam,
Madurai North, Madurai – 625 002.
(R4 is impleaded vide order dated 25.10.2025
in W.M.P.(MD)No.21739 of 2025 in
W.P.(MD)No.26267 of 2025 by GRSJ)
5.Cosmopolitan Club,
No.4, Race Course Road,
Madurai - 625 002. ... Respondents
(R5 is impleaded vide order dated 26.11.2025
in W.M.P.(MD)No.25024 of 2025 in
W.P.(MD)No.26267 of 2025 by GRSJ)
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records of the 2nd respondent dated 27.05.2025 vide
proceeding No. M2E1/002421/2025 and quash the same as null and void
and consequently direct the respondents to issue the Trade Licence for
running P.T Rajan Hall at Door No.4, Besant Road, Chokkikulam,
Madurai for the relevant period 2025-2026 on receipt of the prescribed
license fee, without insisting upon disputed property tax.
For Petitioner : Mrs.Chitra Sampath, Senior Counsel,
For Mr.RV.Rajkumar.
5/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 07:49:13 pm )
W.P(MD)No.11256 of 2023 & batch
For Respondents : Mr.Veerakathiravan,
Addl. Advocate General,
Assisted by Mrs.S.Devasena,
Standing Counsel for R1 to R3.
Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Counsel,
For Mr.Ravikannan for R4.
COMMON ORDER
Heard both sides.
2.These writ petitions have been filed by a registered trust challenging the levy of property tax on the wedding hall which is being run by it and for renewal of trade license.
3.There is no dispute that the land on which the wedding hall has been constructed belongs to M/s.Cosmopolitan Club, Madurai. It was leased out in favour of the petitioner / trust vide registered lease deed dated 21.10.1999. The petitioner was paying half-yearly tax of Rs.12,877/- since 01.04.2001. It was subsequently enhanced to Rs.28,973/- with effect from 01.04.2008. While so, in the year 2017, the petitioner received demand notice for assessment of property tax to the 6/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 07:49:13 pm ) W.P(MD)No.11256 of 2023 & batch tune of Rs.4,65,934/-. Challenging the said notice dated 28.08.2017, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.8918 of 2018. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 09.09.2020. It was noted that only a provisional assessment had been made. Since the petitioner had already lodged their objections on 19.09.2017, the corporation was directed to consider the same and pass order in accordance with law. The proceedings initiated against the assessee were directed to be put on hold till final order was passed. Paragraph No.4 of the said order reads as follows:-
“4.This writ petition stands disposed of, with this direction. Till final orders are passed, the impugned assessment will not be given effect to. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the final orders that may be passed by the respondents, the petitioner will only go before the statutory Tribunal and not once again invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.” Pursuant to the said direction given by this Court, inspection was conducted and the impugned order came to be passed on 08.02.2023 revising the property tax w.e.f. 2011. The corporation determined the half-yearly tax as Rs.5,48,819/-. This sum was enhanced to Rs.11,55,584/- w.e.f. 2022 – 2023.7/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 07:49:13 pm ) W.P(MD)No.11256 of 2023 & batch
4.The learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions. Detailed written submissions were filed and I was taken through its contents. The primary contention put forth by the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner is that the Madurai Corporation was not justified in revising the property tax so steeply and that too with retrospective effect. She pointed out that there is dispute regarding the measurement of property. It is her further contention that the respondents cannot go against the special category status adopted by them with regard to the wedding halls within Madurai limits. She pointed out that vide Resolution No.98 dated 24.09.1998, wedding halls (Kalyana Mandapams) have been mentioned as falling under a special category. The Kalyana Mandapams were classified under different categories depending upon their location. The annual rental value was arrived at on the basis of notional rent for 48 bookings per year ie., 4 functions per month and allowing 25% as a deduction towards maintenance and other heads. The half-yearly tax payable by the petitioner was accordingly determined at the rate of Rs.12,877/- w.e.f 01.04.2001. This amount was periodically revised based on government 8/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 07:49:13 pm ) W.P(MD)No.11256 of 2023 & batch orders issued from time to time. That is how, the amount of Rs.12,877/- became Rs.28,973/- w.e.f. 01.04.2008. According to the learned senior counsel, if the government orders and the resolutions adopted by the corporation are properly applied, the tax payable by the petitioner for the next block period would come to Rs.57,946/-. According to the learned senior counsel, the petitioner has not committed any default and that therefore, denial of trade license on the ground of short payment is bad in law. The learned senior counsel submitted that the writ petitions deserve to be allowed as prayed for.
5.Counter-affidavit had been filed by the Madurai Corporation and the learned Additional Advocate General took me through its contents. He submitted that interference with the impugned orders is not warranted. According to him, the demand is in consonance with the relevant statutory provisions.
6.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. The question that calls for consideration is whether the corporation is justified in making the impugned demand. 9/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 07:49:13 pm ) W.P(MD)No.11256 of 2023 & batch
7.Since the assessments pertain to the period prior to the enforcement of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, the issues arising in this case will have to be decided with reference to the provisions of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 (herein after referred to as “Act”). Section 120 (1), (2) and (3) of the Act read as follows:-
“120.Description of property tax.— (1) If the council by resolution determines that a property tax for general purposes shall be levied, such tax shall be levied on all buildings and lands within the City save those exempted by or under this Act or any other law.
(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the property tax shall be levied at such percentage of the annual value of buildings, or lands which are occupied by, or adjacent and appurtenant to buildings or both, as may be fixed by the council subject to the provisions of Section 116.
Provided that the aggregate of the percentages so fixed shall not in the case of any land or building be less than 15.5 percent or greater than 35 percent of its annual value.
(3) For the purpose of assessing the property tax the annual value of any building or land shall be determined by the Commissioner:
Provided that the annual value of any building or land the tax for which is payable by the Commissioner shall be determined by the Mayor.” 10/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 07:49:13 pm ) W.P(MD)No.11256 of 2023 & batch
8.Section 121 (1) and (2) of the Act read as follows:-
“121.Method of assessment of property tax.— (1) Every building shall be assessed together with its site and other adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance thereto unless the owner of the building is a different person from the owner of such site or premises :
(2) The annual value of lands and buildings shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which they may reasonably be expected to let from month to month or from year to year less a deduction, in the case of buildings, of ten per cent of that portion of such annual rent which is attributable to the buildings alone, apart from their sites and he adjacent lands occupied as an appurtenance thereto; and the said deduction shall be in lieu of all allowances for repairs or on any other account whatever:
Provided that —
(a) in the case of -
(i) any Central or State Government or railway building ; or
(ii) any building of a class not ordinarily let the gross annual value of which cannot, in the opinion of the Commissioner be estimated, the annual value of the premises shall be deemed to be six per cent of the total of the estimated market value of the land and the estimated present cost of erecting the building after deducting for depreciation a reasonable amount which shall in no case be less than ten per cent of such cost ;11/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 07:49:13 pm ) W.P(MD)No.11256 of 2023 & batch
(b) in calculating the value of any land or building, the value of any plant or machinery, on such land or in such building shall be excluded, but all fixtures including lifts and electric and other fittings which add to the convenience of the building shall be valued, subject in the case of a lift to such deduction from the valuation as may be prescribed by the Council on account of the cost of repairs to maintenance of and attendance on, such lift :
Provided further that where the annual value of any land or building is attributable partly to the use of such land or building or any portion thereof for the display of any advertisement or advertisements and tax is levied under this Act in respect of such advertisement or advertisements the annual value of such land or building for the purpose of assessing the property tax thereon shall be ascertained as if such land, building or portion is not used for the display of such advertisement or advertisements.”
9.Section 122 of the Act catalogues the categories of buildings and lands that are exempted from the levy of property tax. It is admitted by the writ petitioners themselves that they are not entitled to claim any exemption under Section 122 of the Act.
10.The first question that calls for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to insist that the wedding halls should be treated 12/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 07:49:13 pm ) W.P(MD)No.11256 of 2023 & batch under special category and levied at standard rates. It is true that resolution dated 24.09.1998 was passed by the Corporation on these lines. The moot question is whether such a resolution can be legally enforced.
11.The Corporation Council itself is a creature of statute. It cannot pass any resolution or order that is contrary to the statutory provisions. Property tax is levied at a certain percentage of the annual value of lands and buildings. Section 121(2) of the Act states that their annual value shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which they may reasonably be expected to let from month to month or year to year less a deduction as set out in the statutory provision. In other words, the letting value of the land and building will determine their annual value.
12.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1970) 2 SCC 803 (Guntur Municipal Council v. Guntur Town Rate Payers' Association), analysed a similar provision under the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920 and held as under :
13/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 07:49:13 pm ) W.P(MD)No.11256 of 2023 & batch “4. … Now Section 82(2) of the Municipalities Act, as stated before, makes provision for the fixation of annual value according to the rent at which lands and buildings may reasonably be expected to be let from month to month or from year to year less the specified deduction. The test essentially is what rent the premises can lawfully fetch if let out to a hypothetical tenant. The municipality is thus not free to assess any arbitrary annual value and has to look to and is bound by the fair or the standard rent which would be payable for a particular premises under the Rent Act in force during the year of assessment. …” In State Trading Corpn. India Ltd. v. NDMC, (2016) 12 SCC 603, while dealing with certain bye-laws of NDMC vis-a-vis the provisions of the parent Act, the Court came to the following conclusion :
“7. … Since there is a provision and procedure under Section 63 of the NDMC Act for calculating the annual rent, one need not refer at all to the bye-laws as quoted above since they are apparently inconsistent with the provisions of the NDMC Act. In short, it is impermissible to refer to the bye-laws framed under the Punjab Act in view of specific provisions made under the NDMC Act providing for the levy, assessment and collection of property tax.
8. Therefore, the only basis for fixation of rateable value is the annual rent at which the land or building might reasonably be 14/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 07:49:13 pm ) W.P(MD)No.11256 of 2023 & batch expected to be let from year to year, subject to the deductions provided under the Act.” In NDMC v. Assn. of Concerned Citizens of New Delhi, (2019) 15 SCC 303, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with the interpretation of Section 63 of the NDMC Act that is identically worded. The relevant extract is as follows:
“78. Even in common parlance, simple language of Section 63(1) clearly conveys that the rateable value is the annual rent which the property is likely to fetch. The yardstick is the “letting”. Two words used in this Section convey this meaning very clearly, namely, the word “rent” in the phrase “annual rent” and the word “let”. Therefore, annual rent is to be determined on the basis of the letting value which is expected reasonably. In cases where the property is already let out, actual rate at which the property is let out becomes the amount at which the land or building is reasonably expected to fetch. Exception may be those cases where the property is let out actually at a rent which is lesser than the rent it would have fetched otherwise.”
13.The approach to be adopted by the local body can now be summed up. The property tax is levied at a particular rate on the annual 15/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 07:49:13 pm ) W.P(MD)No.11256 of 2023 & batch letting value. The annual letting value is determined by taking into account the market considerations. There can be a formula which would include factors like guideline value. But the value arrived at after such an exercise cannot be lowered than the actual rent received by the assessee. The authority must take all possible efforts to ascertain the actual amount received by the assessee. It should also work out the figures by applying the statutory formula. The higher value would be the basis for final determination.
14.In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, one can plainly see that the resolution relied upon by the writ petitioner runs counter to the statutory provisions. It has to be treated as void. No reliance can be placed on such resolution. No right will flow therefrom. The entire case of the writ petitioner is built by taking the property tax determined as per the said resolution as the baseline. Viewed from that angle, the revision effected by the Corporation appears to be exorbitant and inequitable. Once it is seen that the initial valuation itself was one of gross under-valuation, the edifice of argument built thereon crumbles to the ground. The actual rent collected by the petitioner would belie their own case.
16/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 07:49:13 pm ) W.P(MD)No.11256 of 2023 & batch
15.I called upon the writ petitioner to file an affidavit setting out the details regarding the hall rent per day as well as the number of days for which the hall was let out. An affidavit was filed to that effect and the rental details are as follows :-
Financial Hall Rent No. of Remarks
Year Per Day (Rs.) function
days
2011 – 12 60,000.00 - -
2012 – 13 1,00,000.00 - -
2013 – 14 1,50,000.00 57 -
2014 – 15 1,50,000.00 62 -
2015 – 16 1,50,000.00 64 Includes 12 days of
exhibition conducted on Non
Muhurtham days
2016 – 17 2,00,000.00 72 Includes 4 days of Yoga
coaching and 5 days of
exhibition / meetings
conducted on Non
Muhurtham days
2017 – 18 2,00,000.00 68 -
2018 – 19 2,00,000.00 53 Includes 6 days of Yoga
conducted on Non
Muhurtham days
2019 – 20 2,50,000.00 37 -
2020 – 21 2,50,000.00 4 Covid – 19 see note below
2021 - 22 2,50,000.00 16 Covid – 19 see note below
17/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 07:49:13 pm )
W.P(MD)No.11256 of 2023 & batch
2022 – 23 2,50,000.00 27 Booking acceptance reduced
due to police NOC, other
issues and new halls being
opened.
2023 – 24 2,50,000.00 23 Booking acceptance reduced
due to police NOC, other
issues and new halls being
opened.
2024 – 25 - Nil Hall closed from March
2024
In the affidavit, it was admitted that the hall rent does not include the charges for the amenities.
16.The revised demand was made for the first time in the year 2017. I, therefore, will take 2017 – 2018 alone for an illustrative analysis. Even according to the writ petitioner, the hall rent collected by them was Rs.2,00,000 x 68 = 1,36,00,000/-. Proviso 2 to Section 122 of the Act states that the percentage of property tax with reference to annual value should not be less than 15.5%. If the above formula is applied for the year 2017 – 2018 alone, the annual property tax payable by the petitioner would come to Rs.20,40,000/-. But during the relevant time, the half- yearly tax demanded from the writ petitioner was only Rs.5,48,819/-. 18/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 07:49:13 pm ) W.P(MD)No.11256 of 2023 & batch
17.Though the formula set out in Section 121(2) does not speak of actual rent, one cannot lose sight of the prevailing realities. That is why, I had held that the authority must ascertain the actual rent and also the hypothetical rent and levy by taking the higher value. When on the own showing of the assessee, the hall rent per day is in the range of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/-, it would be ridiculous and absurd to proceed on the premise that the hall in question fetches a far lesser rent. The expression “reasonably be expected to let” occurring in Section 121(2) cannot be lost sight of.
18.There is controversy regarding the exact built up area of the Mahal. The authorities would do well to conduct one more spot inspection and measure the extent in the presence of the petitioner. The proceedings can be videographed so that the issue regarding extent is given a quietus.
19.Since on the own showing of the petitioner, the tax leviable appears to be higher, I am not in a position to hold that the demand of the Corporation is unreasonable.
19/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 07:49:13 pm ) W.P(MD)No.11256 of 2023 & batch
20.As rightly submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Corporation, when the petitioner came before this Court on the earlier occasion, I granted them relief on condition that if the assessee is aggrieved by the final order that may be passed by the authority, they have to go only before the Appeal Committee and not once again invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner cannot therefore by-pass the appeal remedy. It is primarily for these twin reasons, I decline to interfere in the matter.
21.However, considering the special facts and circumstances of this case, particularly, the fact that retrospective demand has been made, the petitioner is permitted to avail the appeal remedy by paying 35% of the demanded amount. I also grant liberty to the petitioner to apply to the Commissioner of Madurai Corporation for remission as per statutory provision since for the last two years and more, the hall stands closed. If the petitioner obtains interim order before the Appeal Committee and the petitioner acts in terms of the interim order, trade license shall be renewed by the Corporation.
20/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 07:49:13 pm ) W.P(MD)No.11256 of 2023 & batch
22.In this case, impleading petitions have been filed questioning the locus standi of Thiru.Ramesh Rajan to represent the Trust. The inter se dispute among the trustees is not the concern of this Court in these writ proceedings. What is the issue is only the liability of the trust to pay property tax to the corporation. I however make it clear that merely because this writ petition has been entertained at the instance of one trustee, it does not mean that this Court has recognized his status as its Managing Trustee or Administrative Trustee. These are matters that will have to be worked out elsewhere in the manner known to law.
23.These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
26.11.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias/skm
21/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 07:49:13 pm )
W.P(MD)No.11256 of 2023 & batch
To:-
1.The Commissioner,
Madurai Corporation,
Madurai - 625 002.
2.The Assistant Commissioner /
Deputy Collector,
Madurai Corporation,
North Zone, Madurai.
3.The Deputy Revenue Officer,
Madurai Corporation,
North Zone, Madurai.
22/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 07:49:13 pm )
W.P(MD)No.11256 of 2023 & batch
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias/skm
W.P(MD)No.11256 of 2023
and
W.P.(MD)No.12462 of 2024
and
W.P.(MD)No.26267 of 2025
26.11.2025
(2/2)
23/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 07:49:13 pm )