Maharaja Vs The District Collector

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.21809 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P(MD).No.21809 of 2025

¶7

Maharaja ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Tenkasi District Tenkasi, The Appellate Authority, (District Rural Development and Panchayat Raj). 2.The President, South Madathur Village Panchayat, Kadayam, Tenkasi Taluk, Tenkasi District. ...Respondents

¶8

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent herein to dispose of the petitioner's representation, dated 19.03.2025 regarding granting of license to run the business and installation of machineries within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Rathna Vel Pandian For R1 : Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman Government Advocate For R2 : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja Additional Government Pleader

¶10

1/6

¶11

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

¶12

W.P.(MD).No.21809 of 2025

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the 1^st respondent and the learned Additional Government Pleader appears on behalf of the 2^nd respondent.

¶15

This is the second round of litigation before this Court. Earlier, the petitioner's brother namely E.Sudalaimuthu had approached this Court in W.P(MD) No.27795 of 2024 to call for the records of the order passed by the second respondent herein / third respondent therein, in Nil proceedings dated 24.04.2024. The relevant portion of the above said order is reproduced below:

¶16

3.The impugned order has been passed, directing to close down the carpentry shop run by the petitioner without putting the petitioner on notice. Since the said order is passed, without giving opportunity to the petitioner, it would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order is quashed and remanded back to the third respondent and the third respondent is directed to issue notice on the petitioner

¶17

2/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD).No.21809 of 2025

¶20

and all the necessary parties, giving opportunity of personal hearing in this regard and to pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶21

It is submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader that, despite several notices have been issued to the petitioner and his brother, namely E. Sudalaimuthu, they failed to appear before the first respondent. Consequently, the petitioner's shop was sealed in the year 2025. In support of this, the learned Additional Government Pleader has produced a communication of the Block Development Officer, dated 12.05.2025, bearing reference Na.Ka.No.BDKDM/825/2025/B3, addressed to the second respondent, pursuant to which, the second respondent has passed the proceedings, dated 19.05.2025,

¶22

which read as follows:

¶23

3/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD).No.21809 of 2025

¶26

Since no order has been passed in compliance with the order made in W.P.(MD) No.27795 of 2024, dated 06.12.2024, the petitioner or his brother namely E.Sudalaimuthu, as the case may be, shall appear before the first respondent on 18.08.2025 at 10.30 a.m. The first respondent is directed to pass a fresh order on its own merits and in accordance with law. The second respondent is directed to de-seal the petitioner’s wooden manufacturing unit forthwith, pending further orders of the first respondent.

¶27

4/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD).No.21809 of 2025

¶30