Disposed
V.P.Chidambaram v. The Joint Commissioner
Madras HCWP(MD)/33411/2025
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P(MD)No.33411 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.33411 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.26368 and 26369 of 2025
V.P.Chidambaram
... Petitioner
Vs.
... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarifiled Mandamus, to
call for the records of the impugned notice in Na.Ka.No.1748/2025/Aa4 dated 06.11.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's request for rental the premises situated at Perumalkovilpatti
1/6
W.P(MD)No.33411 of 2025
Village, Ambathurai Revenue Village, Aathur Taluk, Dindigul District
and further direct the Respondents not to evict the Petitioner's family at Perumalkovilpatti Village, Ambathurai Revenue Village, Aathur aluk, Dindigul District.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Manikandan
For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj, Spl. Government Pleader.
ORDER
Heard both sides.
2.The petitioner challenges the impugned communication whereby
he has been asked to vacate. The primary eviction order has not been challenged. Strictly speaking, the impugned challenge may not lie. However, there is considerable merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that eviction drive cannot be selectively enforced. The learned counsel for the petitioner has gone to the extent of alleging that there is religious discrimination. It is a very serious statement and it has to be taken note of by the respondents. Even
2/6
W.P(MD)No.33411 of 2025
according to the respondents, there are totally 75 encroachers. Among
them, 32 are Hindus. The remaining belong to other religions. I make it clear that all the religions will have to be evicted at one go. They cannot selectively evict the encroachers.
3.The petitioner states that he is ready to become a tenant under the respondent temple. The petitioner undertakes to give a fresh application within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents will consider the said application. I make it clear that the terms of offer should be equally made to all the encroachers. In this case also, there cannot be any discrimination.
4.With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
20.11.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias
3/6
W.P(MD)No.33411 of 2025
To :
4/6
W.P(MD)No.33411 of 2025
5/6
W.P(MD)No.33411 of 2025
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias
W.P(MD)No.33411 of 2025
20.11.2025 (4/4)
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a notice asking the petitioner to vacate temple premises can stand when eviction is enforced selectively among encroachers of different religions?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
V.P.Chidambaram
The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Seelapadi, Dindigul District
The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Dindigul
G.R.Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court