Dismissed¶53

A.Nayeem v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Public Interest Litigation – abuse of process

Madras HC2 Sept 2025WP/23013/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, W.P.No.23013 of 2025 (decided 02.09.2025, Coram: Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan): PIL seeking mandamus for closure of meat shop in Kancheepuram dismissed as abuse/misuse of PIL process; petitioner's private dispute (mother's pending civil suit against respondent No.10 over same land and 'theru thinnai') dressed as public interest; costs of Rs.25,000 imposed, payable to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within one month; W.M.P.No.35648 of 2025 consequently dismissed; Article 226 Constitution of India.

What did the court decide?

The petition, styled as a Public Interest Litigation, is misuse and abuse of the process of law and of the PIL forum, which is meant only for espousing public cause. ¶44-45

A.Nayeem Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.23013 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02.09.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶7

W.P.No.23013 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.35648 of 2025

¶8

A.Nayeem S/o.Allah Bakish, Old No.71/20A, New No. 71/20, Vellore Main Road, Oli Mohamed Pettai, Kancheepuram- 631 502.

¶9

Petitioner

¶10

¶11

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MA.IV) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶12

2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration Office of the Commissioner of Municipal Administration Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶13

_______________ Page 1 of 7_

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.23013 of 2025

¶16

3.The Chairman

¶17

The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Corporate Office, No.76, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

¶18

4.The District Collector Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶19

5.Public Works Department Rep. by its Chief Engineer, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶20

6.The Municipal Councillor, Ward No.1 Kancheepuram Municipality, Kancheepuram.

¶21

7.The Commissioner Kancheepuram Corporation, Kancheepuram.

¶22

8.The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine Chennai-600 006.

¶23

9.The Health Inspector Ward No.1, Kancheepuram Corporation, Kancheepuram District.

¶24

10.S.Shagir Basha S/o.Syath Basith, No.176, Manthaveli Street, No.3, Musaravakkam Village, Kancheepuram Tk, Kancheepuram District.

¶25

Page 2 of 7

¶26

Respondents

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.23013 of 2025

¶29

PRAYER:

¶30

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 9 to take appropriate steps to close and to remove the encroachment of illegal meat Butcher Shop and its business, it is run by the 10th respondent in Survey No.3144/ 2A1B, 2B, 2A3, 3144/3 situated in Olimuhamed Pettai, Kanchipuram District.

For Petitioner:

Mr.S.Vinod

For Respondents:

Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath, Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9

¶35

Mr.V.Gunasekar Standing Counsel for respondent No.3

¶36

Mr.R.A.Gopinath Standing Counsel for respondent No.7

¶37

Mr.K.J.Sivakumar for respondent No.10

¶38

Page 3 of 7

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.23013 of 2025

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶43

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶44

This petition, styled as Public Interest Litigation (PIL), if we

¶45

may say so, is misuse and abuse of the process of law and the august forum of PIL, which is meant only for espousing public cause.

¶46

The reply-affidavit filed by the tenth respondent clearly reveals that the petitioner's mother has already filed a suit against respondent No.10 touching upon the same land, over which respondent No.10 is alleged to be running a meat shop.

¶47

The grievance, as set out in the civil suit, is that respondent No.10 and another person are illegally using “theru thinnai” without any authority. That appears to be the text and tenor of the present PIL. It is apparently clear that in the garb of PIL, the petitioner is only espousing his own cause, as has been raised in the civil suit

¶48

Page 4 of 7

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.No.23013 of 2025

¶51

filed by his own mother.

¶52

Learned State counsel would also submit that, in any case, the authorities have found that a cart was being used and there was no permanent shop.

¶53

The petition is abuse of the process of Court and, therefore, it is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to be deposited by the petitioner with the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within a period of one month. Consequently, W.M.P.No.35648 of 2025 is also dismissed.

¶54

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 02.09.2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bbr

¶55

Page 5 of 7

¶56

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

¶57

W.P.No.23013 of 2025

¶58

To:

¶59

1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MA.IV) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.