Madras High Court
Syed Thahar Hussain vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 27 February, 2026
Author: P.T.Asha
Bench: P.T. Asha
WP No. 5942 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA WP Nos. 5942, 5945 and 5948 of 2026, and WMP Nos. 6465 ,6470 ,6471 ,6466, 6462 and 6463 of 2026 WP NO 5942 OF 2026 Syed Thahar Hussain S/o.Syed Bhasheer, No.797/A, Brick Field Road, Puthunagar, Kandhal, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris.
..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009
2. The Collector Collectorate, Udhagamandalam (Ooty), The Nilgiris-643 001
3. The Regional Manager Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation, Udhagamandalam (Ooty) The Nilgiris-643001
4. The Manager Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Boar House, Udhagamandalam (Ooty) The Nilgiris.
..Respondent(s) __________ Page1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 03:43:17 pm ) WP No. 5942 of 2026 WP No. 5945 of 2026 Antony G S/o.George, No.33, Sulthanpet, Finger Post, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris.
..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009
2. The Collector Collectorate, Udhagamandalam (Ooty), The Nilgiris-643 001
3. The Regional Manager Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation, Udhagamandalam (Ooty) The Nilgiris-643001
4. The Manager Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Boar House, Udhagamandalam (Ooty) The Nilgiris.
..Respondent(s) WP No. 5948 of 2026 S.B.Syed Mubeen S/o.Syed Basheer, No.797/A, Brick Field Road, Puthunagar, Kandhal, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris.
..Petitioner(s) Vs __________ Page2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 03:43:17 pm ) WP No. 5942 of 2026
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Collector Collectorate, Udhagamandalam (Ooty), The Nilgiris-643 001
3. The Regional Manager Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation, Udhagamandalam (Ooty) The Nilgiris-643001
4. The Manager Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Boar House, Udhagamandalam (Ooty) The Nilgiris.
..Respondent(s) WP No.5942 of 2026 PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the Eviction Notice No.340/ P.E./ OOTY/ 2025 dated 26.12.2025 issued by the 4th respondent and quash the same as illegal and direct the 4th respondent to permit the petitioner to carry on instant photography service to the visiting tourists as had been earlier WP No. 5945 of 2026 PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the Eviction Notice No.340/ P.E./ OOTY/ 2025 dated 26.12.2025 issued by the 4th respondent and quash the same as illegal and direct the 4th respondent to permit the petitioner to carry on instant photography service to the visiting tourists as had been earlier __________ Page3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 03:43:17 pm ) WP No. 5942 of 2026 WP No. 5948 of 2026 PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the Eviction Notice No.340/ P.E./ OOTY/ 2025 dated 26.12.2025 issued by the 4th respondent and quash the same as illegal and direct the 4th respondent to permit the petitioner to carry on instant photography service to the visiting tourists as had been earlier In all WPs For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Jaisivaramaraj For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan, AGP for R1 and R2 Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman, assisted by Mr.M.V.Athiseshan for R3 and R4 Order Challenging the Eviction notice issued by the 4 th respondent, the petitioners are before this Court.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the permanent residents of Udhagamandam. The father of the petitioners and the petitioners themselves have been carrying on instant photography work at Boat House, Ooty. For this purpose, they had been issued with licences and identity cards to carry out the photography work. It appears that on 26.11.2025, the 3rd respondent had invited a tender for providing instant photography services to visiting tourists at the Boat House, Ooty for a period of three years through a Notice Inviting Tender.
Both technical as well as price bids were invited. The contract was for 3 years __________ Page4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 03:43:17 pm ) WP No. 5942 of 2026 initially for one year extendable by two years. The same was challenged by way of writ petition in W.P.No.50443 of 2025 before this Court and this Court, by an order dated 26.12.2025 directed the respondents to not to issue any work order.
The 4th respondent, being aware of the said order, issued the impugned notice, aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. It is the contention of the respondents that the authorities had received complaints against certain individual photographers alleging that they were demanding exorbitant charges from tourists. Therefore, the licence of the petitioner was not renewed. The respondents would submit that there was no proper system in place and that the activity was highly unregulated as a result of which some photographers were not only behaving rudely but were also charging huge sums from tourists. Therefore, the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation (TTDC) had decided to engage professionals and with this mind, had published the Notice Inviting Tender. The tender process was conducted and tender was issued in favour of MS.Studio of Yercaud and therefore, the eviction order was issued to the petitioners. Therefore, they sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the tender notice had been issued by a person who was not competent to issue the same.
He would further submit that under the Right to Information Act, he had __________ Page5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 03:43:17 pm ) WP No. 5942 of 2026 obtained details about the TTDC. Under the said information, the powers and duties of officers and employees would clearly show that the day-to-day activities of the TTDC are managed by the Board of Directors and that the Board delegates its powers. Likewise, in the decision-making process, it is the Chairman and the Managing Director who look after the management of the TTDC, and the various Heads of Departments report to the Chairman and the Managing Director. They supervise their respective departments and are accountable for the performance of those departments. Therefore, he would submit that the Regional Manager, TTDC, Udhagamandalam, does not have the authority to float the tender. Further, the tender is silent about the price, which is fatal to the respondents, inasmuch as competent bidders may not participate in such tenders. That apart, the petitioners are kept in the dark regarding the pricing. Therefore, they sought to quash the tender notice and subsequent, eviction notice.
5. Heard the learned counsels on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. The arguments now advanced by the petitioners do not find place in the pleadings before this Court. These contentions appear to have been developed subsequently. That apart, the petitioners, who claim to have been carrying on instant photography work at the Boat House, Ooty, ought to be aware of the __________ Page6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 03:43:17 pm ) WP No. 5942 of 2026 price to be quoted with respect to the scope of work under the impugned tender notification. The absence of a specified price in the tender notification is not fatal, since the respondents are calling for bids from persons engaged in the business of photography, and it is open to such bidders to quote their respective prices and for the authorities to select the best bid. As submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioners have not even participated in the tender process and, without doing so, have rushed to this Court. Their intention appears to be to continue to monopolise the photography work at the Boat House. The grounds that are raised during arguments are not the grounds on which the writ petitions have been filed. The petitioners have not made out any case to quash the Notice Inviting Tender and the eviction notice.
7. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand dismissed. It is informed that this Court had earlier permitted the tender process to proceed and had only put a fetter on the issuance of the work order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed. No costs.
27-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ssa __________ Page7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 03:43:17 pm ) WP No. 5942 of 2026 P.T.ASHA J.
ssa To To
1.The Additional chief secretary to the Government Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, Government of Tamilnadu Secretariat, Fort st.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Collector collectorate, Udhagamandalam(ooty) The Nilgiris-643 001
3.The Regional Manager Tamilnadu Tourism Development corporation Udhagamandlaam(ooty) The Nilgiris-643 001
4.The Manager Tamilnadu Tourism Development corporation Board House, Udhagamandalam(Ooty) The Nilgiris.
WP Nos. 5942, 5945 and 5948 of 2026 27-02-2026 __________ Page8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 03:43:17 pm )