Sneghavalli v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA and W.M.P(MD)No.18205 & 18206 of 2025 Sneghavalli .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

2.The Block Development Officer, (Block Panchayat), Thirumayam Union, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District.

3.Muthukaruppan .. Respondents (R3 is impleaded vide Court order, dated 18.09.2025 in W.M.P(MD)No.18673 of 2025) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining the impugned order in Na.Ka.A6/190/25, dated

01.08.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rameshkumar For R1 : Mr.D.Sasikumar Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.R.Ragavendran Government Advocate

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief : "to call for the records pertaining the impugned order in Na.Ka.A6/190/25, dated 01.08.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal."

2. The petitioner was a beneficiary of the Kalaingar Kanavu Illam scheme which was a scheme under which the Government had funded construction of houses for person, who had no house of their own. The petitioner was selected after due enquiry and field visit. Pursuant to which the 2nd respondent by order, dated 22.04.2025 had granted work order for constructing the house in the premises in question. After having issued the order in favour of the petitioner, all of a sudden, without notice

to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 01.08.2025 has been passed. Under this order, the work order granted to the petitioner under the scheme has been cancelled citing a dispute with reference to the proposed site. It is the contention of the petitioner that this cancellation order has been passed without notice to the petitioner. In fact, the work order had been granted only after due enquiry and field visit. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. A mere perusal of the impugned order would clearly show that prior to the cancellation, the petitioner has not been called upon to show cause and has not been heard. Therefore, the orders suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and has been passed without following the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent shall issue show cause notice to the petitioner within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. After hearing the objections of the petitioner as well as the third party whose objection was the reason for the impugned order, the 2nd respondent shall pass a speaking order. The

said exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of submission of the explanation.

4. With the above direction, this Writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 18.09.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes gbg To 1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

2.The Block Development Officer, (Block Panchayat), Thirumayam Union, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District.

P.T.ASHA, J.

gbg 18.09.2025