M.Pratheep Kumar v. The Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR and W.M.P.(MD)No.8950 of 2026 M.Pradeep Kumar ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Registrar, Tamilnadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

2.The Principal, Periyar College of Pharmaceutical Science, Trichy.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent pertaining to its impugned order in Ref.No. ACIVI(3)/19524/2025 dated 01.04.2026 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the 1st respondent to transfer petitioner daughter Ms. P.R. Renishma Marshil studying 2nd year B.Pharm course in the 2nd respondent college owing to health condition to the Bethlahem College of Pharmaceutical Science, Karungal, Kanyakumari District on 1/4

health grounds by considering the petitioner's application dated 29.11.2024 and the application submitted in-person on 27.01.2026 within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner :Mr.SC.Herold Singh For Respondents :Mr.M.P.Senthil *****

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the first respondent not to grant an electricity service connection to the fourth respondent in respect of the lands comprised in Survey Nos.124/1 and 124/19, situated at Kambaneri Puthukudi-I Village, Kadayanallur Taluk, Tenkasi District.

2.According to the petitioner, the said lands were originally acquired by the authorities. Subsequently, the acquisition proceedings were dropped and fresh acquisition proceedings have since been initiated. In the meantime, the fourth respondent applied for an electricity service connection for the said lands. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation dated 08.04.2026 requesting the first respondent not to grant the service connection. His grievance is that no orders were passed 2/4

on the said representation.

3.Mr. S. Deenadhayalan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner's representation has already been rejected on the ground that fresh acquisition proceedings have been initiated.

4.In view of the above submission, nothing survives for consideration in the present writ petition.

5.Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. 6.There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Index :Yes / No 17.06.2026 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No cmr 3/4

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

cmr 17.06.2026 4/4