Thiruvavadudurai Adhinam v. The District Forest Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P(MD)No.19585 of 2025 Thiruvadudurai Adhinam, Represented by South Zone Manager, G.Ramachandran, S/o.Govindasamy, 210, Mela Radha Veethi, Tirunelveli Town - 627 006, Tirunelveli District.

... Petitioner Vs.

The District Forest Officer, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

... Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining the impugned notice in Na.Ka.No.4458/2024/D2 dated 22.08.2025 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent not to interfere into administration of 1/5

the petitioners mutts lands in Patta 1, situated at Mekkarai Village, Sengkottal Taluk, Tenkasi District without due process of law. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramu For Respondent : Mr.M.Gangatharan Government Advocate

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2.The writ petitioner challenges the communication dated 22.08.2025 issued by the District Forest Officer, Tenkasi Division. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner takes serious exception to the language employed in the impugned communication. According to him, the respondent has defamed the petitioner.

4.The official attached to the office of the respondent is present in person. I wanted to know as to why the impugned communication was issued at the first instance. He submits that on account of several 2/5

activities that take place in Mekkarai Village, there has arisen human and wild life conflict. He specifically alleged that number of resorts have been put up.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that only one resort has been established in the leased land and that the petitioner is not responsible for other activities in the village. 6.I wanted to know if prior permission was obtained before constructing the resort that is admittedly located in the writ petitioner's land. No definite answer is forthcoming. The officials clarified that only to enable proper action to be taken, they had called upon the petitioner to furnish the details in question.

7.The language of the communication could have been better and more appropriately worded. The learned counsel for the petitioner is right in expressing his anguish. Be that as it may, only to facilitate the Forest Department to take effective action for protection of wild life as well as the forest area, certain details have been sought from the writ 3/5

petitioner. The petitioner need not part with the original documents. He can assist the respondent by furnishing the photo copies of the documents that have been sought from him. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned communication.

8.With the aforesaid clarification and observation, this Writ Petition stands dismissed.

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

12.09.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No MGA To The District Forest Officer, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

4/5

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

MGA 12.09.2025 5/5