Dismissed¶56

P.Kamaraj v. The Director

Madras HC9 Dec 2025WP(MD)/32349/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ of mandamus; Article 226; Public Interest Litigation; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Alanganallur Bus Stand; Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar bronze statue; Memorial Manimandapam renovation; permission Ni.Mu.No.2682342/2024/C1 dated 11.06.2025; G.O.1067 of the year 1987; District Collector Madurai; Peace Committee Meeting; undertaking on dimensions (base 10X10 feet; total height 25 feet; 10-feet statue); Executive Officer report dated 10.10.2025; dismissal as withdrawn; no costs; W.M.P.(MD) No.25448 of 2025 closed; intervenor Henri Tiphagne; Additional Advocate General Veera Kathiravan.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with no costs, recording the sixth respondent's undertaking on dimensions; connected miscellaneous petition W.M.P.(MD) No.25448 of 2025 closed. ¶56

P.Kamaraj Vs The Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the replacement of the cement statue with a bronze statue of Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar and the renovation of the Memorial Manimandapam at the entrance of Alanganallur Bus Stand is in contravention of the permission granted by the District Collector, Madurai, dated 11.06.2025. +1 more

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Taking note that the local citizens arrived at a compromise and want to live in peace, they are to be left free without external influence; as long as the upcoming structure is not in deviation of the prescribed size, there is no necessity for the Court to interfere in the renovation work of the Memorial Manimandapam.

¶55

Key takeaways

The Court found that the Executive Officer's report dated 10.10.2025 contains the pre-renovation measurements, and the sixth respondent's undertaking (base 10X10 feet, four pillars of six feet, 10-feet bronze statue, dome, total height not exceeding 25 feet) is more or less of the same size, with the height of the entire structure (base, manimandapam, statue and dome) not to exceed 25 feet.ratio¶50
Recording the undertaking given by the sixth respondent, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.ratio¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 (W.P.(MD) No.32349 of 2025, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, decided 09.12.2025) filed by P.Kamaraj seeking a writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 5 to ensure that the construction of the Muthuramalinga Thevar bronze statue and mandapam at Alanganallur conforms to the permission granted by the District Collector, Madurai, in Ni.Mu.No.2682342/2024/C1 dated 11.06.2025, read with G.O.1067 of the year 1987 (existing base 10 X 10 feet, height 25 feet, 10-feet statue). By order dated 12.11.2025 the Court had directed production of the sanction with dimensions. The petitioner thereafter sought withdrawal citing a Peace Committee Meeting compromise between two communities; the Additional Advocate General reported the villagers' decision not to interfere, and the sixth respondent (M.V.Muthiah, President of Pasumpon Muthuramalingam Thevar Silai Paripalan and Thirupani Kuzhu) undertook that the base would be 10X10 feet with total height (base, manimandapam, statue and dome) not exceeding 25 feet, matching the pre-renovation measurements in the Executive Officer's report dated 10.10.2025. Holding that citizens who arrived at a compromise are to be left free without external influence and that there is no necessity to interfere so long as the structure conforms to the prescribed size, the Bench (Dr.G.Jayachandran, J. authoring) dismissed the petition as withdrawn, with no costs, and closed the connected W.M.P.(MD) No.25448 of 2025.

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.32349 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.12.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.32349 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD) No.25448 of 2025

P.Kamaraj

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Director

¶11

Directorate of Town Panchayat 7^th and 8^th Floor

¶12

Urban Administrative Office Campus Chennai-600 028

¶13

2.The District Collector District Collectorate Office Madurai Madurai District-625 020

¶14

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer Madurai, Madurai District

¶15

4.The Executive Officer Alanganallur Town Panchayat Alanganallur, Madurai District

¶16

Page 1 of 9

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.32349 of 2025

¶19

5.The Chairman Alanganallur Town Panchayat Alanganallur Madurai District

¶20

6.M.V.Muthiah

¶21

President Pasumpon Muthuramalingam Thevar Silai Paripalan and Thirupani Kuzhu Alanganallur Vadipatti Taluk Madurai District [R5 is amended vide Court order dated 12.11.2025]

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to ensure that the construction of Muthuramalingam Thevar Brone Statue and mandapam is restored strictly in conformity with the permission granted by the second respondent in Ni.Mu.No.2682342/2024/C1, dated 11.06.2025, in accordance with the law within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Neelamegam For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.P.Thilakkumar Government Pleader for R1 to R5 Mr.S.Ramsundar Vijayraj for R6 Mr.Henri Tiphagne for proposed intervenor

¶25

_____________ Page 2 of 9_

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD) No.32349 of 2025

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

[Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.]

¶30

This Public Interest Litigation is filed alleging that the replacement

¶31

of the cement statue with a bronze statue of Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar on the existing Manimandapam at the entrance of Alanganallur Bus Stand is in contravention to the permission granted earlier and the organizers of the Construction Committee are now trying to expand the base size and height of the structure under the guise of renovation and installing a bronze statue.

¶32

2. This Court, on considering the nature of the grievance raised by the public interested person, had earlier, vide order dated 12.11.2025, directed the respondents to furnish the permission / sanction granted for construction of Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar statue and Manimandapam containing the dimensions of both and adjourned the matter.

¶33

Page 3 of 9

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD) No.32349 of 2025

¶36

3. The writ petitioner has now come forward and submitted a letter dated 03.12.2025 to the Registry seeking to withdraw this writ petition

¶37

by stating that the village leaders had a Peace Committee Meeting and to maintain harmony between two communities, they have decided not to interfere with the renovation work of the Memorial Manimandapam and installing a bronze statue of Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar.

¶38

4. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 would submit that the villagers, pursuant to the Peace Committee Meeting, have decided not to interfere with the renovation work of the Memorial Manimandapam and installing a bronze statue of Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar and the Construction Committee has also given an undertaking that the renovation of the structure will not be in deviation of the permission earlier granted under the Government Order in G.O.1067 of the year 1987.

¶39

5. Mr.Henri Tiphagne, learned counsel, who wants to intervene in this matter, brought to the notice of this Court the proceedings of the District

¶40

_____________ Page 4 of 9_

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD) No.32349 of 2025

¶43

Collector, Madurai, dated 11.06.2025, whereby permission has been granted for renovation of the Memorial Manimandapam and the statue of Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar with reference to the Government Order in G.O.1067 of the year 1987 and the existing measurement of the Memorial Manimandapam as it exists.

¶44

6. From the above proceedings of the District Collector, Madurai, we are able to find that the base size of the existing Memorial Manimandapam is 10 X 10 feet and the height is 25 feet and on the said Manimandapam, the cement statue of Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar with a height of 10 feet was permitted to be installed. Further, in the said proceedings, the District Collector has also permitted the Construction Committee to install the statue at the appropriate height without causing hindrance to the public.

¶45

7. Learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent, who is the President of Pasumpon Muthuramalingam Thevar Silai Paripalan and Thirupani Kuzhu, submits that the sixth respondent has given an undertaking that the base size of the upcoming structure will be 10X10 feet and the height will be 2 feet from the surface and four pillars having a height of six feet for

¶46

_____________ Page 5 of 9_

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.(MD) No.32349 of 2025

¶49

Manimandapam will be erected and on the said Manimandapam, the bronze statue of Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar having a height of 10 feet will be installed. Further, to cover the statue, a dome will be constructed and in any event, the height of the entire structure will not be over and above 25 feet.

¶50

8. From the above submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General and the undertaking given by the sixth respondent, this Court finds that the report of the Executive Officer of Alanganallur Selection Grade Panchayat, dated 10.10.2025, contains the details about the measurement of the Manimandapam prior to its renovation. The present undertaking given by the sixth respondent is more or less is of the same size and the sixth respondent has also undertaken that the height of the entire structure (base, manimandapam, statue and dome) will not be over and above 25 feet.

¶51

9. In the said circumstances, taking note of the fact that the local citizens have arrived at a compromise with regard to the construction of the Memorial Manimandapam and they want to live in peace, this Court is of the view that the local citizens have to be left free without any external influence. As long as the upcoming structure will not be in deviation of the size

¶52

Page 6 of 9

¶53

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

¶54

W.P.(MD) No.32349 of 2025

¶55

prescribed, there is no necessity for the Court to interfere in the renovation work of the Memorial Manimandapam.

¶56

10. Hence, recording the undertaking given by the sixth respondent, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶57

[G.J., J.] [K.K.R.K., J.]

¶58

09.12.2025

¶59

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

¶60

krk

¶61

To: 1.The Director, Directorate of Town Panchayat, 7^th and 8^th Floor, Urban Administrative Office Campus, Chennai-600 028.

¶62

2.The District Collector, District Collectorate Office, Madurai, Madurai District-625 020.