(Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the 1st Respondent to consider the Representation of the Petitioner dated 19.12.2025 and provide the Petitioner with an alternate accommodation at Lotus Colony, Nandanam instead of, Ayyapakkam as granted in G.O.Ms. No.178 of 2025 dated 26.11.2025.)

1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking direction to the 1st respondent to provide them with an alternate accommodation at Lotus Colony, Nandanam instead of, Ayyapakkam as granted the above said Government Order based on her representation.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that she has been allotted an alternate accommodation far away at Ayapakkam instead of Lotus Colony, Nandanam, which is only 30 km away from the present place. However certain persons have been shown favour by giving them allotment in the nearby places. The petitioner would also submit that through the RTI application, they learnt that nearly 3 flats are vacant in Lotus Colony, Nandanam, and public quota allotments have been made. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 1st respondent to grant them the alternate accommodation at Lotus Colony, Nandanam. The representation is yet to be considered and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that by filing the writ petitions, the petitioner was trying to circumvent the earlier orders of this Court in Cont.P.N0.3930 of 2025, etc. The petitioner who seek alternate accommodation is not willing to take the same when granted.

4. Heard the counsels and also perused the materials available on record.

5. In the judgment in W.P.No.18481 of 2025 dated 29.07.2025, the learned Judge had observed that on a perusal of the materials, it is clear that an alternate accommodation has been provided in K.K.Nagar to persons who were party functionaries and Personal Assistant to Ex-ministers. The Court had deprecated this selective allotment and the Court had directed the 1st respondent to deal with the representation and till such time, directed to maintain the status quo.

6. The 1st respondent stated that the representation was rejected on the basis that the alternate accommodation cannot be considered and further if any fresh application was made by the petitioner, considering the vacancy position, the request of the petitioner would be considered. Since this stand was in total variance to the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner has moved Contempt proceedings. The learned Judge by order dated 12.12.2025 has taken note of the fact that the alternate accommodation given to the petitioner is at variance with the allotment given to similarly placed persons and since the grievance could not be ventilated in a contempt proceedings, the learned Judge had closed the contempt petitions, leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the rejection order in the manner known to law. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court, seeking a direction to consider the representation.

7. There is no response to the petitioner’s submission that still there are vacant flats available at Lotus Colony, Nandanam. Therefore, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that till such time an order of injunction restraining the respondents from evicting the petitioner from the present tenement at Pattinapakkam, is granted. The petitioner shall continue to reside in the present tenement and that if any untoward incident happens, she will not hold the respondents liable and seek compensation.

8. The learned Additional Government Pleader strongly opposed to the order of injunction. However, this Court is of the view that if the orders of injunction, is not granted, the respondents would forcibly vacate the petitioner and the entire exercise relating to the consideration of the representation would become a futile exercise.

9. The Writ Petition stand disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.