Dismissed¶33

M.Maheswari v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC11 Sept 2025WP/33996/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; WP No.33996 of 2025; M.Maheswari v. Secretary to Government, Industries Department and others (incl. S.Elumalai, 6th respondent); PIL/writ of mandamus under Article 226; challenge to quarry lease dated 12.11.2020 in Perambalur district; representation dated 20.02.2025; Block No.27; laches/unexplained delay; vague and bald allegations lacking material; frivolous petition lacking bonafide; dismissal with costs Rs.50,000 payable to Puducherry Legal Services Authority within one month; Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ (author) with G.Arul Murugan, J; decided 11.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner, though claiming to be a resident of the same village, assigned no reason in the petition as to why the challenge to the quarry lease granted as back as on 12.11.2020 was not laid at the earliest point of time.

M.Maheswari Vs the Secretary to Government — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the quarry lease granted in favour of the 6th respondent as back as on 12.11.2020 should be entertained when no reason is assigned for not laying the challenge at the earliest point of time. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The petition is otherwise also blissfully vague and lacks proper material; except bald allegations, no specific allegation supported with any material was placed before the Court, and the objections regarding exclusion of Block No.27 were frivolous.

¶32

Key takeaways

The petition appears to be frivolous and lacks bonafide; it is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- payable to Puducherry Legal Services Authority within a period of one month.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to respondents 1-5 to act upon the petitioner's representation dated 20.02.2025 against the quarry lease granted in favour of the 6th respondent as back as on 12.11.2020. The High Court of Judicature at Madras (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ, and G.Arul Murugan, J.; order made by the Chief Justice) found that the petitioner claimed merely to be a resident of the same village yet assigned no reason why the challenge was not laid at the earliest point of time; that the petition was blissfully vague and lacked proper material, resting on bald allegations without specific supporting material, including frivolous objections over exclusion of Block No.27; and that the petition appeared frivolous and lacking bonafide. Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) payable to the Puducherry Legal Services Authority within one month. Decided 11.09.2025.

¶1

WP No.33996 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,

¶6

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

WP No.33996 of 2025

M.Maheswari

.. Petitioner

-vs-

The Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶14

The Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Alandur Road, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

¶15

The Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Perambalur District.

¶16

The District Collector, Perambalur District 621 212.

¶17

The Member Secretary, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Department of Environment, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

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

¶20

WP No.33996 of 2025

¶21

S.Elumalai

¶22

.. Respondents

¶23

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st to 5th respondents to consider and act upon the representation dated 20.02.2025 submitted by the petitioner and take appropriate and necessary action against the perpetrator(s) in accordance with law, based on the allegations made therein, within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Murugan for Mr.B.Balamurugan For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath Govt. Advocate for RR 1 to 4 * * * * *

¶25

ORDER

¶26

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

¶27

This petition, styled as public interest litigation, seeks to challenge quarry lease granted in favour of 6^th respondent as back as on 12.11.2020. The petitioner claims to be the resident of the same village. There is no reason assigned in the petition as to why this challenge was not laid by the petitioner at the earliest point of time, if the petitioner's case is that the grant was in violation of law.

¶28

Page 2 of 4

¶29

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

¶30

WP No.33996 of 2025

¶31

Otherwise also, the petition is blissfully vague and lacks

¶32

proper material. Except making bald allegations, no specific allegation supported with any material has been placed before this Court. Frivolous objections of exclusion of the Block No.27, which was granted by way of lease to the 6^th respondent in 2020, have also been made.

¶33

Petition appears to be frivolous and lacks bonafide. Dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) payable to Puducherry Legal Services Authority within a period of one month from today.

¶34

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 11.09.2025

¶35

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶36

sra

¶37

Page 3 of 4

¶38

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

¶39

WP No.33996 of 2025

¶40

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

¶41

(sra)

¶42

¶43

The Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶44

The Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Alandur Road, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

¶45

The Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Perambalur District.

¶46

The District Collector, Perambalur District 621 212.

¶47

The Member Secretary, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Department of Environment, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.

WP No.33996 of 2025

11.09.2025

Page 4 of 4

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

M.Maheswari v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Maheswari v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Sithivinayagan Vs the Registrar

Mukesh Kumar Chaudhari Vs the Principal Secretary to Government

Dr.Krishna Baba Vs the Commissioner

T.Chitradevi Vs the Registrar General

D.Joseph Jayadoss Vs the Principal Secretary

Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/s. Eos GmbH India Branch Office