Mayil Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Mayil Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent (Na.Ka.No. 78/2025/Aa4 dated 02.09.2025) set aside; petitioner's representation dated 30.09.2025 remitted to the Tahsildar, Vadipatti for fresh consideration with personal hearing to the petitioner and other interested parties, and appropriate orders on merits within four (4) weeks; writ petition allowed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tahsildar, Vadipatti's proceedings dated 02.09.2025 rejecting the petitioner's application for a legal heir certificate (submitted on 21.08.2025 without the name of the deceased's first wife) ought to be quashed and the legal heir certificate directed to be issued. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned order was passed only on the ground that the petitioner's father had two wives and the name of the father's first wife (Solaye) had not been included in the application; read with the record that the application was rejected without any enquiry, the petitioner was given no opportunity to submit his explanation.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 02.09.2025 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent (Tahsildar, Vadipatti) to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.09.2025 afresh.

Key takeaways

On remittal, the 2nd respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and other interested parties, if any, and thereafter pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.ratio¶33
The fresh consideration pursuant to remittal shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.ratio¶33
With the above directions, the writ petition stands allowed; no costs; and consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (Ms. Justice P.T. Asha, J., order dated 18.11.2025) allowed a W.P.(MD) filed by Mayil under Article 226 seeking a Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Tahsildar, Vadipatti's proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 78/2025/Aa4 dated 02.09.2025 rejecting his legal heir certificate application and to direct issue of the certificate. The petitioner, son of Andiyappa Gounder by the latter's second marriage (contracted during the lifetime of the first wife Solayi/Solaye), had applied on 21.08.2025 upon his father's death (26.12.1999), omitting the first wife's name due to a technical issue; the application was rejected without any enquiry, solely because the father had two wives and the first wife's name was not included. Setting the impugned order aside, the Court remitted the petitioner's representation dated 30.09.2025 to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration, directing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and other interested parties, appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, all within four (4) weeks of receipt of the order. No costs; connected miscellaneous petition W.M.P(MD)No.25251 of 2025 closed (prayer amended vide court order dated 18.11.2025).