← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/690/2026disposed of

Murugan R v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu Represented By Its Additional Chief Secretary

2026-01-20Honourable Mr Justice R.Vijayakumar5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.01.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.P.(MD)No.690 of 2026 R.Murugan

...Petitioner

Vs

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The District Collector, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

3. The Assistant Director (Panchayat), O/o. the Rural Development, Collectorate, Tenkasi.

4. The Block Development Officer, BDO Office, Keelapavoor Panchayat Union, Iruppu Pavoorchathiram, Tenkasi District.

5. The Avudaiyaanoor Panchayat, Represented by its Panchayat President, Panchayat Office, Avudaiyaanoor, Tenkasi District.

6.R.Kuthalingarajan

...Respondents

1/5

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to hear the petitioner before deciding the revision filed by the 6th respondent herein in PR.4(2)/2024-4 and pass an order for the recovery of the looted amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the 5th respondent Panchayat based on the representation dated 04.07.2025, 30.06.2025 and 29.12.2025 within the period stipulated by this Court .

For Petitioner : M/s.Ananth C.Rajesh For Respondents : M/s.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3 M/s.S.Jeyapriya Government Advocate for R4

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus directing the first respondent to hear the petitioner before deciding the revision petition filed by the 6th respondent.

2. A perusal of the records reveal that the 6th respondent has suffered an order of disqualification at the hands of the second respondent herein and he has preferred a revision before the first respondent.

3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, he is an interested person and without hearing him, orders should not be passed by the first respondent.

2/5

4. Considering the above said facts, the petitioner is at liberty to file his objections before the first respondent and the first respondent is directed to consider the objections of the petitioner and thereafter, pass orders in the revision petition filed by the 6th respondent.

5. With the above said observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

20.01.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR 3/5

To

1. The Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The District Collector, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

3. The Assistant Director (Panchayat), O/o. the Rural Development, Collectorate, Tenkasi.

4. The Block Development Officer, BDO Office, Keelapavoor Panchayat Union, Iruppu Pavoorchathiram, Tenkasi District.

4/5

R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.

RJR W.P.(MD)No.690 of 2026 20.01.2026 5/5