Allowed

B.Gopi v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC14 Aug 2025WP(MD)/22022/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned alleged encroachment and damage to a water body (Panaiyur Periya Kanmoi) by the seventh respondent (Sibi Universe Private Limited) for a solar plant. The Court dispensed with notice to the company and directed the fourth respondent (Executive Engineer) to ascertain damage and restore the tank bund within three months, recovering costs from the company if culpable.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit representation to 4th respondent; 4th respondent to restore damaged tank bund within 3 months and recover costs from 7th respondent if liable.

B.Gopi Vs The Secretary to Government — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.22022 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.22022 of 2025

B.Gopi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat,

¶11

St.George Fort,

¶12

Chennai-600009.

¶13

2.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶14

3.The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (WRO), Madurai Region, Madurai.

¶15

4.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (WRO), Sivagangai.

¶16

5.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.22022 of 2025

¶20

6.The Tahsildar, Sivagangai Sub Division, Sivagangai District.

¶21

7.Sibi Universe Private Limited Company, Rep. By Balaji, Office at JMK Groups, No.46, Ramar Kovil Street, Ram Nagar, Coimbatore-641 009. ... Respondents

¶22

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to take action against the 7th respondent Company who has encroached and damaged the water channel and bund of the Panaiyur Periya Kanmai in survey No.149 situated at Panaiyur Village, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai District and to restore the same as of the original position in order to free flow of water to the said kanmai by considering the petitioner's representation dated 08.07.2025.

¶23

For Petitioner :Mr.R.Anandha Raj

¶24

For Respondents :Mr.A.Kannan Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R6

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶27

Additional Government Pleader for the official respondents. Issuance of notice to the seventh respondent is dispensed with.

¶28

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.22022 of 2025

¶30

The petitioner is a resident of Pillur Village. In his village, there is a large water body known as “Panaiyur Periya Kanmoi”. It is comprised in Survey No.149.

¶31

The extract of the “A” register has been enclosed in the typed set of papers. It is seen therefrom that Survey No.149 has been classified only as water body. The petitioner alleges that the seventh respondent herein who has installed the solar plant had damaged the tank bund and also the inlet of the tank. In this regard, the representations have been sent to the various authorities including the District Collector.

¶32

The petitioner is directed to submit a representation addressed to the 4^th respondent. Upon receipt thereof, the fourth respondent shall take action as per law. If the fourth respondent is satisfied that the tank bund has been damaged, it is his duty to restore the original condition. If it is found that the seventh respondent is the cause for the damage, cost also will be recovered from the seventh respondent. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.22022 of 2025

¶35

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶36

[G.R.S., J.] [B.P., J.] 14.08.2025

¶37

NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No rmi

¶38

¶39

1.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai-600009.

¶40

2.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶41

3.The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (WRO), Madurai Region, Madurai.

¶42

4.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (WRO), Sivagangai.

¶43

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P.(MD)No.22022 of 2025

¶45

5.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶46

6.The Tahsildar, Sivagangai Sub Division, Sivagangai District.

¶47

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.P.(MD)No.22022 of 2025

¶49

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J

and

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

rmi

W.P(MD)No.22022 of 2025

¶54

14.08.2025

¶55

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

B.Gopi v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Gopi v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Sundarraj Vs The District Collector

Eswari Vs The District Collector

M.Neelamegam Vs The District Collector / Monitoring Committee

Selvakumar Vs The District Collector/Monitoring Committee

Kanthaiah Vs The District Collector

Valliappa Chettiar Oorani and Valli Vinayagar Kovil Private Trust Vs The Municipal Commissioner