Disposed¶38

Gnanaraj. P v. State represented by The District Collector

Madras HC11 Aug 2025REV.APLW(MD)/54/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; REV.APLW(MD)No.54 of 2024 in W.P(MD)No.4165 of 2024 and W.M.P(MD)No.5639 of 2024; decided 11.08.2025 by G.R.Swaminathan, J. Review by writ petitioner P.Gnanaraj against interim injunction dated 04.03.2024 restraining replacement of a statue/idol; Court held review of the interim order does not arise as a fresh Miscellaneous Petition lies in the pending writ petition; Review Application disposed of with liberty, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the review applicant to proceed further remedy in the manner known to law in the pending writ petition; Review Application disposed of with no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶38

Gnanaraj. P Vs State represented by The District Collector — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

REV APLW(MD).No.54 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

REV.APLW(MD)No.54 of 2024 in W.P(MD)No.4165 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)No.5639 of 2024

¶8

P.Gnanaraj

¶9

... Review Petitioner /

¶10

Writ Petitioner

¶11

¶12

1.The State represented by The District Collector, O/o.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District.

¶13

2.The State represented by The District Revenue Officer, O/o.The District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi District.

¶14

3.The State represented by The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District.

¶15

4.The State represented by The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

¶16

1/5

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

REV APLW(MD).No.54 of 2024

¶19

5.The State represented by

¶20

The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

¶21

O/o.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Santhankulam Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

¶22

6.The State represented by The Tahsildar, Tiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

¶23

7.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Meyagnanpuram Police Station, Meyagnanpuram, Thoothukudi District.

¶24

8.The State represented by

¶25

The Village Administrative Officer,

¶26

Anaiyur Village, Tiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

¶27

9.Manthirkumar

¶28

... Respondents / Respondents

¶29

PRAYER: Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 & 114 of CPC to review the order dated 04.03.2024 in W.P(MD)No.4165 of 2024 on the file of this Court.

¶30

For Petitioner : Mr.A.N.Ramanathan

¶31

For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan Additional Government Pleader for R.1 to R.8

¶32

2/5

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

REV APLW(MD).No.54 of 2024

¶35

Heard both sides.

¶36

ORDER

¶37

2.The review applicant is the writ petitioner. At his instance, this Court granted an interim injunction restraining the private respondents from replacing the statue or idol. It appears that the review applicant is not satisfied with the extent of relief granted and seeks something more. It is, however, very well open to the writ petitioner to file a fresh Miscellaneous Petition in the pending Writ Petition. Therefore, questioning or seeking review of the interim order earlier granted does not arise at all.

¶38

3.Granting liberty to the review applicant to proceed further remedy in the manner known to law in the pending writ petition, this Review Application is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶39

11.08.2025

¶40

Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No NCC :Yes/No MGA

¶41

3/5

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

REV APLW(MD).No.54 of 2024

¶44

¶45