Madras High CourtWP/15668/2026dismissed

S.Vivek v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu

2026-04-27Honourable The Chief Justice,Honourable Mr.Justice G.Arul Murugan10 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.04.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN WP No.15668 of 2026 and WMP N os .16887, 16886 and 16885 of S.Vivek S/o.Suriya, Member, Ward No.3, No.1, Balwadi Street, ThenMelpakkam Village Panchayat, Anjur Post Pin Code - 603 204 Chengalpattu District.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (PR-4) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -600 009.

2. The Director, Office of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, NCB-21 to 28, P.S. Kumarasamyraja Salai, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028.

3. The Collector of Chengalpattu District Collectorate Office, (The Inspector of Panchayat for Chengalpattu District) Chengalpattu, Pin Code - 603 001.

4. The Assistant Director (Panchayats), Office of the Assistant Director of Panchayats, Collectorate Compound, Chengalpattu, Pin Code - 603 001.

5. The Assistant Director (Audit), Office of the Assistant Director (Audit) Collectorate Compound, Chengalpattu, Pin Code - 603 111.

6. The Executive Engineer, Office of the Executive Engineer, Collectorate Compound, Chengalpattu, Pin Code - 603 001.

7. The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayats) Office of the Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayats) Kattankulathur, Chengalpattu District, Pin Code - 603 203.

8. The Deputy Block Development Officer, (Panchayats), Office of the Deputy Block Development Officer, (Panchayats), Kattankulathur, Chengalpattu District, Pin Code - 603 203.

9. The Assistant Director of Panchayat Office of the Assistant Director of Panchayat Union, Kattankulathur Panchayat Union, Kattankulathur, Chengalpattu District, Pin Code - 603 203.

10.The Overseer of Panchayat Union Office of the Overseer of Panchayat Union, Kattankulathur, Chengalpattu District, Pin Code - 603 203.

11.E.Govindarajan, S/o. Ellan, President, ThenMelpakkam Village Panchayat, Kattankulathur Panchayat

Union, ThenMelpakkam, Anjur Post, Pin Code-603 204 Chengalpattu District.

12.Santhakumari, W/o. Haribabu, Vice-President ThenMelpakkam Village Panchayat, Kattankulathur Panchayat Union, ThenMelpakkam, Anjur Post, Pin Code - 603 204, Chengalpattu District.

Respondent(s) PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order made in G.O.(2D) No.169, dated 08.12.2025 on the file of the 1st respondent so as to quash the same. For Petitioner(s):

Mr. N.Jothi, Senior Counsel for Mr. S.Vinod For Respondent(s):Mrs. E.Ranganayaki Additional Government Pleader for R1 and R3 to R10 Mr. K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor for R2

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Calling into question the veracity of the order dated 8.12.2025 passed by the first respondent in and by which the appeals filed by respondent Nos.11 and 12 have been allowed and the order of the

District Collector directing their removal was set aside, the present writ petition, styled as public interest litigation, is filed by the petitioner.

2. A bare perusal of the order impugned dated 8.12.2025 makes it clear that the order of the District Collector directing removal of respondent Nos.11 and 12 from the posts of President and VicePresident of the Panchayat Union was set aside. Seeking quashment of the said order, the petitioner has filed this public interest litigation.

3. It is crystal clear that the relief sought in this public interest litigation relates to service matter. The Apex Court in a series of decisions, viz., Dr.Duryodhan Sahu vs. Jitendra Kumar1; Neetu Vs. State of Punjab2;

Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra3; and Vishal Ashok Thorat and others vs. Rajesh Shripambapu Fate and others4, has consistently held that a service dispute cannot be raised by way of a public interest litigation. It is apposite to reproduce the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware's case (supra): 1(1998) 7 SCC 273 2(2007) 10 SCC 614 3(2005) 1 SCC 590 4(2020) 18 SCC 675

"11. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so-called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Dr.

Duryodhan Sahu case this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the Courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession.

when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Apart from the sinister manner, if any, of getting such copies, the real brain or force behind such cases would get exposed to find out the truth and motive behind the petition. Whenever such frivolous pleas, as noted, are taken to explain possession, the Court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore-stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts."

4. In the light of the law enunciated by the Supreme Court, it is clear that the present public interest litigation which pertains to service matter is not maintainable.

5. It needs to be accentuated at this juncture that the petitioner herein along with two others has earlier filed W.P.No.9473 of 2023 against the misappropriation and swindling of money by respondent Nos.11 and 12 herein and the same is pending before

this court. It is stated by the petitioner that the earlier writ petition is the basis for initiation of action against respondent Nos.11 and 12. The scope of the earlier writ petition, which is also a public interest litigation, is regarding misappropriation of public funds. When that writ petition is still pending, we find no good ground to entertain a public interest litigation in service matter. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim applications stand closed.

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 27.04.2026 Index :

Yes/No :

Yes/No sasi

To:

1. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (PR-4) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -600 009.