Disposed¶32

K.Suresh Kumar v. the District Collector

Madras HC9 Sept 2025WP/33751/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; W.P.No.33751 of 2025; K. Suresh Kumar v. District Collector, Perambalur; removal of encroachment (RoE) prayer; waterway; Old Survey No.296/1; Perambalur Village/Taluk/District; writ of mandamus; Article 226; representation dated 30.11.2024; lack of specificity of injury to petitioner; withdrawal of writ petition with liberty; preservation of rights and contentions; fresh writ petition or Public Interest Litigation (PIL); no order as to costs; disposed as withdrawn/closed.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw granted; writ petition disposed of as withdrawn/closed with preservation of the writ petitioner's rights and contentions to file a fresh writ petition with specific averments or a Public Interest Litigation (PIL); no order as to costs. ¶32

K.Suresh Kumar Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitioner, who has not set out with specificity as to how he is affected, could maintain a writ petition seeking removal of encroachment on the waterway in Old Survey No.296/1.

¶26

Court's answer

The captioned writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn/closed with preservation of the rights and contentions of the writ petitioner, and there shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The writ petitioner's request to preserve all rights and contentions to either come to this Court with another writ petition after setting out with specificity how the writ petitioner is affected, or to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), is acceded to.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Sundar and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, JJ.), W.P.No.33751 of 2025, decided 09.09.2025 - K. Suresh Kumar v. The District Collector, Perambalur District and others. Writ petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.11.2024 and to remove the encroachment made on the waterway in Old Survey No.296/1, situated at Perambalur Village, Perambalur Taluk, Perambalur District. The Court observed that the writ petitioner had not set out with specificity as to how the writ petitioner is affected. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner sought leave to withdraw the writ petition, requesting preservation of all rights and contentions to either come to the Court with another writ petition after setting out the details with specificity, or to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The request was acceded to. Held: writ petition disposed of as withdrawn/closed with preservation of rights and contentions of the writ petitioner; no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.No.33751 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶7

W.P.No.33751 of 2025

K.Suresh Kumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector,

¶12

Perambalur District, Perambalur.

¶13

2.The Commissioner,

¶14

Perambalur Municipality, Perambalur.

¶15

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur.

¶16

4.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Perambalur.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.11.2024 made

¶19

Page Nos.1/6

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.No.33751 of 2025

¶22

through his advocate and to remove the encroachment made on the waterway in Old Survey No.296/1, situated at Perambalur Village, Perambalur Taluk, Perambalur District within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J. ,]

¶25

Captioned 'Writ Petition' [hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity]

¶26

has been filed with a RoE (Removal of Encroachment) prayer qua waterway. Writ petitioner has not set out with specificity as to how writ petitioner is affected. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for writ petitioner sought leave of this Court to withdraw the captioned WP but made a further request to this Court to preserve all the rights and contentions of writ petitioner to either come to this Court with another writ petition after setting out the details with specificity as to how the writ petitioner is affected or file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). This request to preserve the rights of the writ petitioner is acceded to.

¶27

Learned counsel for writ petitioner has made an endorsement

¶28

in the case file and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:

¶29

Page Nos.2/6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.33751 of 2025

¶32

In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned WP is disposed of as withdrawn/closed albeit with preservation of rights and contentions of writ petitioner in the aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

(M.S.,J.) (M.S.K.,J.) 09.09.2025

¶34

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No mmi

¶35

Page Nos.3/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.33751 of 2025

¶38

¶39

1.The District Collector, Perambalur District, Perambalur.

¶40

2.The Commissioner, Perambalur Municipality, Perambalur.

¶41

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur.

¶42

4.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Perambalur.

¶43

Page Nos.4/6

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.No.33751 of 2025

¶46

M.SUNDAR, J., and MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.,

¶47

mmi

¶48

W.P.No.33751 of 2025

¶49

09.09.2025

¶50

Page Nos.5/6

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.No.33751 of 2025

¶53

Page Nos.6/6

¶54

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

K.Suresh Kumar v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Suresh Kumar v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Theerthagiri Vs The Tamilnadu State Human Rights Commission

S.Muniyamuthu Vs the District Collector

A.a.Joachim Jerry, Vs The Secretary

C.Lakshmi Vs the Commissioner

K.Balan Vs the District Collector

R.Sundararaji Vs the District Collector