Disposed¶41

R.S.Rajendran v. the District Collector

Madras HC13 Nov 2025WP/42323/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, WP No.42323 of 2025, decided 13.11.2025 (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ; G.Arul Murugan, J). Writ of mandamus under Article 226 seeking removal of TASMAC shop No.5633 and bar from temple property at Survey No.175/283, Mela Theru, Vedaranyam, Nagapattinam District (Vedaranyeswarar Temple; HR&CE; TASMAC respondents). Court found inquiry already initiated by competent authority with summons issued and matter pending; disposed of petition with direction to complete inquiry within eight weeks; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction that the pending inquiry be brought to its logical conclusion one way or the other within a period of eight weeks, as stated by learned Standing Counsel for TASMAC; no order as to costs. ¶41

R.S.Rajendran Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to take action to remove TASMAC shop No.5633 and the TASMAC bar running at Survey No.175/283, Mela Theru, Vedaranyam Town, Nagapattinam District, on the ground that the liquor shop is situated on temple land and causes inconvenience to the public, school-going students and parents.

¶35

Court's answer

On the petitioner's own showing, the competent authority has taken cognizance of the complaint, initiated an inquiry and issued summons, and the matter is pending; accordingly it cannot be said that the authorities are sitting over the complaint and not taking any action, and the inquiry is expected to take some reasonable time to conclude.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Since notice was issued on 02.09.2025 and the affected parties were noticed, the Court was not inclined to keep the petition pending and disposed of it with a direction that the inquiry be brought to its logical conclusion one way or the other within eight weeks, as stated by learned Standing Counsel for TASMAC; there will be no order as to costs.

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mandamus (Art. 226) by R.S.Rajendran seeking directions to eight respondents, including the District Collector, Joint Commissioner HR&CE and TASMAC officials, to remove TASMAC shop No.5633 and the TASMAC bar running at Survey No.175/283, Mela Theru, Vedaranyam Town, Nagapattinam District, alleging that the shop stands on Vedaranyeswarar Temple land and inconveniences the public, school students and staff (representation dated 27.09.2025). Held: on the petitioner's own showing the competent authority had already taken cognizance, initiated inquiry and issued summons, and the matter was pending; the authorities could not be said to be sitting over the complaint. Since notice had issued on 02.09.2025 and affected parties were noticed, the Division Bench (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ and G.Arul Murugan, J.) declined to keep the petition pending and disposed of it on 13.11.2025 with a direction to conclude the inquiry one way or the other within eight weeks, as stated by learned Standing Counsel for TASMAC; no order as to costs.

¶1

WP No.42323 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.11.2025

¶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.42323 of 2025

R.S.Rajendran

: Petitioner

versus

1.The District Collector,

¶14

O/o. District collector, Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District.

¶15

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶16

HR&CE (Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment), Office of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District.

¶17

3.The Executive Officer, Vedaranyeswarar Temple, Vedaranyam, / Nagapattinam District.

¶18

4.The Tahsildar,

¶19

O/o. Tahsildar, Vedaranyam, Nagapattinam District.

¶20

5.The Commissioner, Vedaranyam Municipality, Vedaranyam. Nagapattinam District.

¶21

Page 1 of 6

¶22

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

¶23

WP No.42323 of 2025

¶24

6.The District Manager, Tasmac Industrialist, Thirupuvanam, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District

¶25

7.The Managing Director, Tasmac C.M.S.A, TOWER 11, 4^th Floor, Gandhi Iravin Road, Egmore, Chennai.

¶26

8.The Senior Zonal Manager, O/o. Old District Collector, First Floor, R.D.O. Complex, Trichy. : Respondents

¶27

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct all respondents to take appropriate action to remove the TASMAC shop No.5633 and TASMAC bar running at Survey No.175/283, Mela Theru, Vedaranyam Town, Nagapattinam District from the temple property and the respondents to ensure protection of public welfare, particularly that of students and school staff, and to maintain peace and order in the commercial and residential areas of Mela Theru, Vedaranyam based on petitioner's representation dated 27.09.2025.

¶28

For Petitioners	:	Mr.Shanmugasundaram, for Mr.R.Muruga Bharathi
For Respondents	:	Mr.A.Edwin Prabhakar, State Government Pleader assisted by Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman, Government Advocate for respondents 1, 4 and 5
		Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, Standing Counsel, for respondents 6 to 8
		No appearance for respondents 2 and 3

¶29

Page 2 of 6

¶30

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

¶31

WP No.42323 of 2025

¶32

ORDER

¶33

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

¶34

Challenge to the location of the TASMAC shop is based mainly on

¶35

the ground that the liquor shop is situated on the land belonging to the temple and the same is causing inconvenience to the public, school going students, parents etc.

¶36

On petitioner's own showing, it is revealed that taking cognizance of the complaint, inquiry has been initiated and summons have also been issued by the competent authority where the matter is pending.

¶37

Therefore, it cannot be said that the authorities are sitting over the complaint and not taking any action. Inquiry is expected to take some reasonable time to conclude. Taking into consideration that notice was issued on 02.09.2025 and the parties affected were noticed also, we are not inclined to keep this petition pending. The petition is disposed of with a direction that inquiry shall be brought to its logical

¶38

Page 3 of 6

¶39

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

¶40

WP No.42323 of 2025

¶41

conclusion one way or the other within a period of eight weeks, as stated by learned Standing Counsel for TASMAC. There will be no order as to costs.

¶42

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 13.11.2025

¶43

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No tar