Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Mugilnathan Vs The District Forest Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Home
Madras HC
2025
Mugilnathan Vs The District Forest OfficerMugilnathan v. The District Forest Officer

Disposed¶26

Mugilnathan v. The District Forest Officer

Madras HC11 Dec 2025WP(MD)/660/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; WP(MD)No.660 of 2024 & WMP(MD)No.23626 of 2024; decided 11.12.2025 by Justice B.Pugalendhi; petitioner Mugilnathan (Forest Guard) vs District Forest Officer, Ramanathapuram Forest Division; challenge to suspension order No. 5517/2023/E dated 11.12.2023; unauthorised constructions in Rameshwaram Reserved Forest Bit III-A, Survey No.1026/21; failure of Forest Guards to patrol; suspension revoked vide proceedings dated 13.02.2025 subject to disciplinary proceedings; writ petition closed with direction to conclude disciplinary proceedings within three months; no costs or quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed (not adjudicated on merits, the suspension having already been revoked); respondents directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within three months from receipt of a copy of the order.

Why is it important?

Since the suspension order under challenge had been revoked subject to the pending disciplinary proceedings, the court closed the writ petition and directed the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. ¶26

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition closed (not adjudicated on merits, the suspension having already been revoked); respondents directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within three months from receipt of a copy of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the suspension order dated 11.12.2023 issued by the District Forest Officer placing the petitioner (a Forest Guard) under suspension should be quashed and the petitioner reinstated.

Court's answer

Since the suspension order under challenge had been revoked subject to the pending disciplinary proceedings, the court closed the writ petition and directed the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Article 226) by a Forest Guard challenging his suspension order dated 11.12.2023 passed by the District Forest Officer, Ramanathapuram Forest Division, following a field inspection in Rameshwaram Reserved Forest Bit III-A that found recent unauthorised constructions within his beat and an enquiry finding the Forest Guards had not patrolled the area. At hearing there was no representation for the petitioner, but proceedings of the District Forest Officer dated 13.02.2025 were produced showing the suspension had been revoked subject to the pending disciplinary proceedings, with the enquiry reported complete. The court closed the writ petition and directed the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within three months from receipt of a copy of the order.

A

WP(MD)No.660 of 2024

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 11.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

WP(MD)No.660 of 2024 and WMP(MD)No.23626 of 2024

Mugilnathan

...Petitioner

Vs

The District Forest Officer, Ramanathapuram Forest Division, District Forest Office, Ramanathapuram.

...Respondent

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned suspension order of the respondent's proceedings in No. 5517/2023/E, dated 11.12.2023 and quash the same and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Kumar

For Respondent : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar, Special Government Pleader

1/4

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

WP(MD)No.660 of 2024

ORDER

The petitioner / a Forest Guard has been placed under suspension on 11.12.2023 and the same is challenged in this writ petition.

2.The District Forest Officer in his field inspection in the Rameshwaram Reserved Forest Bit III-A of Rameshwaram Beat II found that in Survey No.1026/21, there were two new constructions with asbestos, one incomplete brick building and three fences covered with tin sheets and they were recently constructed in Reserved Forest Bit III-A, which comes within the territorial jurisdiction of Rameshwaram Beat-II within the limit of this petitioner. Subsequently enquiry has been conducted and it was found that the Forest Guards have not patrolled the area and therefore, the petitioner has been placed under suspension vide the impugned order.

3.When this writ petition is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. However, a copy of the proceedings of the District Forest Officer, Ramanathapuram, dated 13.02.2025 has been produced before this court, which reveals that the suspension order has 2/4

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

WP(MD)No.660 of 2024

been revoked subject to the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner. It is also reported that the enquiry has been completed.

4.Since this writ petition has been filed challenging the suspension

order, which has also been revoked subject to the disciplinary proceedings, this writ petition is closed with a direction to the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11.12.2025

DSK

To

The District Forest Officer, Ramanathapuram Forest Division, District Forest Office, Ramanathapuram.

3/4

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

WP(MD)No.660 of 2024

B.PUGALENDHI.J.,

DSK

WP(MD)No.660 of 2024

11.12.2025

4/4

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

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the suspension order dated 11.12.2023 issued by the District Forest Officer placing the petitioner (a Forest Guard) under suspension should be quashed and the petitioner reinstated.¶19
The court held
Since the suspension order under challenge had been revoked subject to the pending disciplinary proceedings, the court closed the writ petition and directed the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶26

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶12

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Suspension order placing the petitioner, a Forest Guard, under suspension, challenged via writ of certiorarified mandamus seeking its quashing and reinstatement.¶12
District Forest Officer, Ramanathapuram Forest Division · 11.12.2023
Prior proceeding
District Forest Officer's field inspection in Rameshwaram Reserved Forest Bit III-A (Survey No.1026/21) found recently constructed buildings and fences within the petitioner's beat jurisdiction; an enquiry found the Forest Guards had not patrolled the area, leading to the petitioner's suspension.¶20
Prior proceeding
Proceedings of the District Forest Officer, Ramanathapuram dated 13.02.2025, produced before the court, reveal that the suspension order was revoked subject to the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner; the enquiry is reported to have been completed.¶21
Prior proceeding
The revocation was subject to the pending disciplinary proceedings, and completion of the enquiry was reported to the court.¶24

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Mugilnathan¶7
T.Kumar
respondent
The District Forest Officer, Ramanathapuram Forest Division, District Forest Office, Ramanathapuram¶10
C.Venkatesh Kumar

Coram

AI extract

B.PUGALENDHIauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 11 Dec 2025 · December
Registered: 9 Jan 2024
Case no.: WP(MD)/660/2024
CNR: HCMD010021142024
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: B.pugalendhi
Disposal: CLOSED
Case type: WP(MD)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from B.pugalendhi

Stalin Raj K.S Vs The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
10 Dec 2025
C.Malathi Vs The Director General of Police
10 Dec 2025
The Management Vs Kumar.K
10 Dec 2025
R.Aathi Vs Teachers Recruitment Board
11 Dec 2025
S.Chinna Poovan Vs A.G. Murugan
11 Dec 2025
M.Sriramar Vs The Registrar of Cooperative Societies
11 Dec 2025

Cite this judgement

Mugilnathan v. The District Forest Officer, WP(MD)/660/2024 (MAD), decided on 11 December 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Suspension order placing the petitioner, a Forest Guard, under suspension, challenged via writ of certiorarified mandamus seeking its quashing and reinstatement.District Forest Officer, Ramanathapuram Forest Division · 11.12.2023
District Forest Officer's field inspection in Rameshwaram Reserved Forest Bit III-A (Survey No.1026/21) found recently constructed buildings and fences within the petitioner's beat jurisdiction; an enquiry found the Forest Guards had not patrolled the area, leading to the petitioner's suspension.
Proceedings of the District Forest Officer, Ramanathapuram dated 13.02.2025, produced before the court, reveal that the suspension order was revoked subject to the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner; the enquiry is reported to have been completed.

View full history

Bench / Coram

B.PUGALENDHI

Parties & counsel