Dismissed¶36

E.Selvi v. The Principal Secretary

Madras HC4 Jun 2025WP(MD)/3112/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Village Panchayat merger blocked by writ refused; Kuraikundu Village Panchayat / Virudhunagar Municipality / Virudhunagar Taluk and District; municipal limit expansion treated as government policy decision outside judicial interference; negative prayer not entertainable; petition lacking PIL characteristics dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed; G.O(D)No.131 dated 16.03.2007 procedures; petitioners' representation dated 21.10.2024; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Writ of Mandamus; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; bench S.M. Subramaniam and Dr. A.D. Maria Clete; connected petition W.P.(MD)No. 2178 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

The negative prayer sought for (restraining the respondents from effecting the merger) cannot be considered, because it involves a policy decision of the Government.

E.Selvi Vs The Principal Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether a Writ of Mandamus can issue forbearing the respondents from merging the Village Panchayat of Kuraikundu (Virudhunagar Taluk, Virudhunagar District) into Virudhunagar Municipality without complying with the procedures contemplated under G.O(D)No.131 dated 16.03.2007. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

Expansion of city limits, or merging a Panchayat with the Municipality or Corporation, is a decision to be taken by the Government.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The negative prayer sought for (restraining the respondents from effecting the merger) cannot be considered, because it involves a policy decision of the Government.

¶32

Key takeaways

Objections, if any, must be submitted to the Government through a public representative or otherwise; the Court cannot interfere with such matters, as they relate to developmental activities and governance.ratio¶32
The Writ Petition does not satisfy the characteristics of a Public Interest Litigation, and therefore the Writ Petition stands dismissed; no costs ordered and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madurai Bench, Madras High Court — W.P.(MD)No.3112 of 2025 (joined with W.P.(MD)No. 2178 of 2025); decided 04.06.2025; bench: S.M. Subramaniam and Dr. A.D. Maria Clete, JJ.; order passed by S.M. Subramaniam, J. Sixteen petitioners sought a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to forbear the State/municipal respondents from merging the Village Panchayat of Kuraikundu (Virudhunagar Taluk, Virudhunagar District) into Virudhunagar Municipality without complying with the procedures contemplated under G.O(D)No.131 dated 16.03.2007, invoking their representation dated 21.10.2024. Held: the negative prayer cannot be considered as it involves a policy decision of the Government; expansion of city limits or merging a Panchayat with a Municipality or Corporation is a decision for the Government; objections must be channelled to the Government through a public representative, and the Court cannot interfere in matters of developmental activities and governance; the petition failed to satisfy the characteristics of a Public Interest Litigation. Disposition: Writ Petition dismissed, no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.3112 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.3112 of 2025 and W.P.(MD)No. 2178 of 2025

¶8

1.E.Selvi 2.A.Kowselya 3.P.Maheswari 4.G.Mareeswaran 5.G.Kartheeswari 6.V.Velayutham 7.S.Dhanalakshmi

¶9

8.Ramesh 9.K.Saravanan 10.J.Dhavamani 11.V.Arul Rani 12.M.Marimuthu 13.R.Muthulakshmi 14.M.Rajeswari 15.S.Sahayavalli 16.V.V.Kumarasen

... Petitioners

Vs.

1/6

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

¶14

W.P.(MD)No.3112 of 2025

¶15

The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, St. George Fort, Chennai.

¶16

The Director of Municipal Administration and Drinking Water Supply Department,

¶17

No. 78, Santhome High Road, Rural Administration Complex, Chennai 28.

¶18

The Divisional Regional Director, Municipal Administration and Drinking Water Distribution Department,

¶19

Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶20

The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶21

The Commissioner, Virudhunagar Municipality, Virudhunagar.

¶22

The Block Development Officer, Virudhunagar Panchayat Union, Virudhunagar District. ...Respondents

¶23

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from not to merge the Village Panchayat of Kuraikundu in Virudhunagar Taluk, Virudhunagar District into the Virudhunagar Municipality without complying the procedures contemplated under G.O(D)No. 131 dated 16.03.2007 by considering the petitioners' representation dated 21.10.2024.

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Mareeskumar For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar Government Pleader

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.3112 of 2025

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )

¶30

The Writ of Mandamus has been instituted to forbear the respondents

¶31

from merging the Village Panchayat of Kuraikundu in Virudhunagar Taluk, Virudhunagar District into Virudhunagar Municipality without complying the procedures contemplated under G.O(D)No.131, dated 16.03.2007 by considering the petitioners' representation dated 21.10.2024.

¶32

2.The negative prayer as such sought for cannot be considered, since it involves a policy decision of the Government. Expansion of city limits or merging Panchayat with the Municipality or Corporation is a decision to be taken by the Government. Therefore, the objections if any have to be submitted to the Government through public representative or otherwise the Court cannot interfere with such matter, as it relates to developmental activities and governance. Thus,

¶33

3/6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.3112 of 2025

¶36

this Writ Petition is not satisfying the characteristics of Public Interest Litigation and therefore, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶37

(S.M.S., J.) & (A.D.M.C., J.)

¶38

04.06.2025

¶39

(2/2)

¶40

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No

¶41

Yuva

¶42

To:-