K.Murugesan v. The Secretary
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE K.Murugesan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Secretary, Home Department, St.George Fort, Chennai.
2.The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate Building, Pudukkottai District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai District.
4.The Block Development Officer, Arimalam Panchayat Union, Arimalam Post, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
5.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, 1/5
Thirumayam and Post, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
6.The District Supply Officer, Collectorate Complex, Pudukkottai District.
7.Madhi 8.Ganesan 9.Shankar 10.Mangudi 11.Ramesh 12.Vellaisamy 13.Murugesan 14.Paramasivam
...Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 6 to delete the name of Maduthupatti in the address column mentioned in the ration cards and other allied documents issued for the villagers in Keeranipatti, Kummagudi Post, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 12.06.2025 within the time limit as prescribed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Hari Haran For R1 to R6 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, Government Pleader
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) This Public Interest Litigation has been instituted, seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 to 6 to delete the name of Maduthupatti in the address column 2/5
mentioned in the ration cards and other allied documents issued for the villagers in Keeranipatti, Kummagudi Post, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 12.06.2025 within the time limit as prescribed by this Court.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that no such village called 'Maduthupatti' exists and the respondents 7 to 14 named the village and therefore, it is to be deleted. Even as per the petitioner, the dispute exists between two groups in the matter of existing temple. 3.A perusal of the affidavit reveals that the present Public Interest Litigation has been instituted, in view of personal dispute regarding the temple activities. However, the revenue authorities shall not use the name of the village, if it does not exist in the revenue records. Thus, this Writ Petition deserves no merit for consideration. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
(S.M.S., J.) & (A.D.M.C., J.) 30.07.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Yuva 3/5
To 1.The Secretary, Home Department, St.George Fort, Chennai.
2.The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate Building, Pudukkottai District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai District.
4.The Block Development Officer, Arimalam Panchayat Union, Arimalam Post, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
5.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Thirumayam and Post, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
6.The District Supply Officer, Collectorate Complex, Pudukkottai District.
4/5
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
Yuva 30.07.2025 5/5