A.Vadivel Murugan Vs The District Collector

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to remove the unlawful fencing put up by the 5th respondent in front of petitioner's house most particularly in the middle of the North Street of T.Kunoothupatti, Thottapanayakanur Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District by considering the Petitioner's representation dated 25.09.2025.

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

W.P(MD)No.31235 of 2025

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Chengizhan For Respondents : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia

¶20

Spl. Govt. Pleader (for R1, R3 & R4) Mr.D.Sasikumar Addl. Govt. Pleader (for R2)

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to remove the unlawful fencing allegedly put up by the fifth respondent in front of the petitioner’s house, more particularly in the middle of North Street, T.Kunoothupatti, Thottapanayakanur Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District, by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 25.09.2025.

¶23

Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 and Mr.D.Sasikumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the second respondent. Since no adverse order is going to be passed as against the fifth respondent, notice to him is dispensed with. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the fifth respondent has unlawfully put up fencing in the middle of the public street, thereby obstructing ingress and egress to the petitioner’s residence and causing inconvenience to the general public. It is further submitted that

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P(MD)No.31235 of 2025

¶28

though the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation dated 25.09.2025 to the official respondents seeking removal of such encroachment, no action has been taken till date.

¶29

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent submitted that the representation of the petitioner will be considered by the second respondent on merits and in accordance with law.

¶30

Considering the limited nature of the relief sought and the submissions made on either side, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 25.09.2025, and take appropriate action, if the allegation of encroachment is found to be true, by following due process of law and after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31