P.T.Dhandapani v. The State Of Tamilnadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.12.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN P.T.Dhandapani : Petitioner versus
1. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its Secretary, Department Of Environment And Forest, Government Of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George, Chennai 09 2.The Commissioner Department Of Municipal Administration & Water Supply, Government Of Tamil Nadu 4th Floor, Ezhilagam (Annexe Building) Chepauk Chennai 05 3.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, 76 Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai 32 4.Engineer In Chief (Water Resources Organization ) And Chief Engineer (General), Public Works Department Chepauk Chennai 05 5.The District Collector
Office Of The Collectorate, Thirupathur District 6.The Revenue Divisional Officer Office Of The Rdo, Vaniyampadi Taluk, Thirupathur District 7.The Tahsildar Office Of Tahsildar Vaniyambadi Taluk, Thirupathur District 8.The Municipal Commissioner Udhayendhiran Municipality Thirupathur District Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities 5 and 8 not to establish wastewater/sewage treatment plant in S.No.147 Madhanacheri Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Thirupathur District by considering the representations submitted by the villagers dated 28.08.2025, 29.08.2025, 01.09.2025 and 12.09.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karthik Sevugapperumal For Respondents : Mr.E.Vijay Anand Additional Government Pleader For R1, R2, R4 To R8.
Mr.V.Gunasekar Standing Counsel, For R3.
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) This public interest litigation has been filed seeking issuance of direction to restrain the authorities from establishing sewage treatment plant at the present location, on the submission that it is in the vicinity of schools, temples etc.
2. In the absence of there being any specific ground raised in the petition, we are not inclined to give any definite direction for change of location. It would essentially lie in the realm of administrative consideration.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are many other alternative locations which could be examined.
4. We leave it open for the authorities to consider the representations made by the petitioner.
5. With such observation, the petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 12.12.2025 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No tar
To
1. The Secretary, Department Of Environment And Forest, Government Of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George, Chennai 09 2.The Commissioner Department Of Municipal Administration & Water Supply, 4th Floor, Ezhilagam (Annexe Building) Chepauk Chennai 05 3.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, 76 Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai 32 4.Engineer In Chief (Water Resources Organization ) And Chief Engineer (General), P.W.D., Chepauk Chennai 05 5.The District Collector Thirupathur District 6.The Revenue Divisional Officer Office Of The Rdo, Vaniyampadi Taluk, Thirupathur District 7.The Tahsildar Office Of Tahsildar Vaniyambadi Taluk, Thirupathur District 8.The Municipal Commissioner Udhayendhiran Municipality Thirupathur District
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN , J.
(tar) 12.12.2025