A.Paul Pandi Vs. Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority.

[r.sudhakar, j.] - constitution of india - article 226 -- writ petition is filed praying to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.10.2011 and consequently direct the respondents to allot an alternative shop to the petitioner.learned counsel for the respondents states that the second respondent will consider the claim if feasible as per law.writ petition is filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.10.2011 and consequently direct the respondents to allot an alternative shop to the petitioner.r.sudhakar, j.order1. writ petition is filed praying to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.10.2011 and consequently direct the respondents to allot an alternative shop to the petitioner.2. mr.raja srinivas, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents. by consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. petitioner claims to be a flower vendor and has vacated the shop at the instance of the second respondent. petitioner has now made a request by way of representation dated 28.10.2011 addressed to the second respondent seeking alternative shop.4. learned counsel for the respondents states that the second respondent will consider the claim if feasible as per law.5. considering the nature of relief sought for and the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, without going into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation dated 28.10.2011 made by the petitioner on its own merits if permissible under law expeditiously.6. the writ petition is disposed of as above. no costs.