Jeyalakshmi v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER and W.M.P.(MD) No.1530 of 2026 Jeyalakshmi ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Madurai.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam, Madurai.

3.The Tahsildar, Thirupparankundram Taluk, Madurai.

4.D.S.Senthilvel ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide Na.Ka.No. 5682/2025/A4 dated 09.01.2026 and and to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.

Page No. 1 of 5

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramanathan For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 09.01.2026, bearing Na.Ka.No.5682/2025/A4, passed by the second respondent.

2. With the consent of the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself, dispensing with the notice to the fourth respondent, as no adverse orders are proposed to be passed against him.

3. The impugned order is a notice calling upon the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 22.01.2026 before the second respondent. The impugned notice was issued by the second respondent on the basis of the petition filed by the fourth respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the application made by the petitioner was initially enquired into and Page No. 2 of 5

rejected by the Tahsildar, the third respondent; that however, without filing an appeal against the said order of the third respondent, another application was made before the second respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer; and that now the second respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, is enquiring into the said application filed by the fourth respondent, though he has no jurisdiction.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first to third respondents would submit that he has no instructions regarding the earlier enquiry conducted by the third respondent, Tahsildar, on the application filed by the petitioner, which was rejected by the third respondent.

6. In view of the above submissions, this Writ Petition can be disposed of by directing the second respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, to examine the factum of the rejection of the fourth respondent's application by the third respondent, Tahsildar and also dispose of the said petition on the basis of which the impugned enquiry notice was issued. In the event that the fourth respondent deliberately suppresses the factum of the rejection of his application by the third respondent, Tahsildar, the Page No. 3 of 5

same shall be taken into consideration while disposing of the fourth respondent's application.

7. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. [K.SURENDER, J.] 28.01.2026 JEN Index : Yes / No To 1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Madurai.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam, Madurai.

3.The Tahsildar, Thirupparankundram Taluk, Madurai.

Page No. 4 of 5

K.SURENDER , J.

JEN 28.01.2026 Page No. 5 of 5