Mayil v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA W.P.(MD).No.29917 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.25251 of 2025 Mayil ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District.
2. The Tahsildar, Vadipatti, Madurai District.
... Respondents 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 and quash the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No. 78/2025/Aa4 dated 02.09.2025 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue the legal heir certificate to the petitioner and pass such other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.
(Prayer is amended vide court order dated 18.11.2025 in WMP(MD) No. 25251/2025 in WP(MD) No.29917 of 2025 by PTAJ) 1/6
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Suresh Kannan For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The above writ petition has been filed for the following relief:- "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 and quash the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.78/2025/Aa4 dated 02.09.2025 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue the legal heir certificate to the petitioner and pass such other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice."
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's father namely Andiyappa Gounder had married one Solayi. Since no children were born between them, the said Aandiyappa Gounder had married the petitioner's mother namely Thulasiammal, during the lifetime of the said Solayi. Out of the wedlock, five children were born. While so, the petitioner's father had passed away on 26.12.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner's father's first wife Solayi had passed away on 17.08.2021 and the petitioner's mother had passed away on 25.10.2023.
2/6
3. At this juncture, the petitioner had applied for issuance of legal heir certificate for the death of his father on 21.08.2025, by excluding the name of the petitioner's father's first wife Solaye due to technical issue. However, without any enquiry the 2nd respondent vide order dated 02.09.2025, had rejected the application submitted by the petitioner. Pursuant to which, the petitioner had sent a detailed representation to the respondents on 30.09.2025 and the same was not considered by the respondents to date. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
5. The impugned order is being passed only on the ground that the petitioner's father had two wives and the name of the petitioner's father's first wife namely Solaye had not been included in the application and therefore, the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected with giving the petitioner an opportunity to submit his explanation. 3/6
6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 02.09.2025 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.09.2025 afresh, afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and other interested parties, if any and thereafter pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. With the above directions, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 18.11.2025 (2/2) NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No rgm 4/6
To
1. The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District.
2. The Tahsildar, Vadipatti, Madurai District.
5/6
P.T.ASHA, J.
rgm W.P.(MD).No.29917 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.25251 of 2025 18.11.2025 (2/2) 6/6