Disposed¶32

P.v.Rajkumar v. the Commissioner

Madras HC11 Sept 2025WP/34130/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (W.P.No.34130 of 2025, Madras HC, 11.09.2025) by P.V.Raj Kumar under Article 226 seeking mandamus to Coimbatore Corporation/RDO/Tahsildar to act against Sri Sowbaghya Sithi Vinayagar Temple trustee for encroachment removal; withdrawn at counsel's instance with rights preserved and liberty expressly noted to file a PIL on the same cause of action; disposed as withdrawn/closed, no costs. No substantive judicial decision on the encroachment grievance.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw the writ petition granted; rights preserved to initiate proceedings in PIL jurisdiction; no order as to costs. ¶32

P.v.Rajkumar Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.34130 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶7

W.P.No.34130 of 2025

P.V.Raj Kumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner,

¶12

Corporation of Coimbatore, Coimbatore - 641 018.

¶13

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Central Zone, Coimbatore Corporation, Coimbatore - 641 018.

¶14

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, North Division, Coimbatore - 641 018.

¶15

4.The Tahsildar, North Division, Coimbatore - 641 018.

¶16

5.The Trustee,

¶17

Sri Sowbaghya Sithi Vinayagar Temple, Dr.Subbarayan Street, Tatabad, Coimbatore - 641 012.

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

Page Nos.1/4

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.No.34130 of 2025

¶22

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India

¶23

praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take necessary action on fifth respondent to remove encroachment.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vijay

¶25

ORDER

¶26

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

¶27

After some arguments, Mr.S.Vijay, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner sought leave of this Court to withdraw captioned 'Writ Petition' [hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity] but made a plea to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the same issue/same cause of action. This request of learned counsel for writ petitioner is acceded to. We make it clear that it is open to either writ petitioner or any other individual or entity to initiate proceedings in PIL jurisdiction.

¶28

Learned counsel for writ petitioner has made an endorsement in the case file and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:

¶29

Page Nos.2/4

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.34130 of 2025

¶32

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

¶33

(M.S.,J.) (M.S.K.,J.) 11.09.2025 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No mmi

¶34

¶35

1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Coimbatore, Coimbatore - 641 018.

¶36

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Central Zone, Coimbatore Corporation, Coimbatore - 641 018.

¶37

Page Nos.3/4

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.34130 of 2025

¶40

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

¶41

mmi

¶42

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, North Division, Coimbatore - 641 018.

¶43

4.The Tahsildar, North Division, Coimbatore - 641 018.

¶44

W.P.No.34130 of 2025

¶45

11.09.2025

¶46

Page Nos.4/4

¶47

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

P.v.Rajkumar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.v.Rajkumar v. the Commissioner

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

M/s.Sri Mutharamman Travels and Transport, Vs Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited

M/s.Sri Mutharamman Travels and Transport, Vs Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited

M/s.Sri Mutharamman Travels and Transport, Vs Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited

Spartek Ceramics India Limited Vs Spartek Agencies

S.Ravindran Vs the District Collector

S.Ramamoorthi Vs the Asst Divisional Engineer