Manikandan R v. The District Collector/Monitoring Committee
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN W.P.(MD)No.5713 of 2026 R.Manikandan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Collector/Monitoring Authority, Tenkasi District.
2.The Assistant Director, District Town and Country Planning Office, Tirunelveli Road, Pavoorchatram, Tenkasi District.
3.The Block Development Officer, Keelapavoor, Panchayat Union, PavoorChatram, Tenkasi District.
4.The Panchayat President, Thippanampatti Panchayat, Keelpavoor, Tenkasi District.
5.Mr.Vijayaraghavan Promotor, "Vijaya Gardens" Layout, Thippanampatti, Tenkasi District he residing at Door No.6, Thandal Kanthasamy Street Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.
...Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to 1/5
consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.11.2025 for take appropriate action against the fifth respondent for failing to complied the order which passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka./I2-5672-2022 dated 07.01.2023 in respect of the survey No.612/3A, 612/5A, 612/2A, 612/4B, 612/1, 612/4A, 612/5B, 611/1, 611/2A, 611/2B, 611/3, 620/4, 620/7 at Thippanampatti village, Tenkasi District with stipulated time as prescribed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Moorthy For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan (R1 to R3) Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.) The instant writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.11.2025.
2.The contention of the petitioner is that the subject properties were developed into house plots. For such purpose, 74 Palmyra trees standing in the said property were allowed to be removed on condition that the developer should plant and maintain 10 saplings for every tree removed from the property. Since the fifth respondent, who is the developer, has not complied with the said condition, the petitioner made 2/5
representation to the authorities concerned to take action as against the fifth respondent. Since the same was not considered, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3.We have come across many similar writ petitions, where the development activities are challenged by the third parties or individuals to someway or other put the developers under pressure. We are of the view that such petitions in the name of Public Interest Litigations should be curbed. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition as there are no merits in this writ petition. It was also noted during arguments that the petitioner is the former President of the Village Panchayat. His position itself shows that in the present writ petition no public interest is involved and it is purely based on private interest. 4.Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. [N.S.K., J.] & [M.J.R., J.] 02.03.2026 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes ta 3/5
To 1.The District Collector/Monitoring Authority, Tenkasi District.
2.The Assistant Director, District Town and Country Planning Office, Tirunelveli Road, Pavoorchatram, Tenkasi District.
3.The Block Development Officer, Keelapavoor, Panchayat Union, PavoorChatram, Tenkasi District.
4/5
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ta W.P.(MD)No.5713 of 2026 02.03.2026 5/5