Petition seeking to stop commercial groundwater extraction by the second respondent. The Government Pleader stated all required licences had been obtained; the petitioner disputed this. The court held the petitioner could verify licences under the Right to Information Act and closed the writ petition, granting liberty to proceed accordingly.
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.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P(MD)No. 8272 of 2023 and W.M.P(MD)No. 7616 of 2023
V.Balakrishnan
... Petitioner
vs.
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to forbear the 2nd respondent from extracting ground water for commercial purposes at Maavadikal Thoppu, Periyapillai Valasai Village, Viswanathapuram, Shencottai Taluk, Tenkasi District.
1/4
For Petitioner : M/s.D.Venkatesh For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Selva Ganesan, Additional Government Pleader, for R-1 Mr.N.Shyllappa Kalyan, for R-2
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to forbear the 2nd respondent from extracting ground water for commercial purposes at Maavadikal Thoppu, Periyapillai Valasai Village, Viswanathapuram, Shencottai Taluk, Tenkasi District.
2. Based on written instructions, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent submitted that the second respondent has obtained all the required licenses from the appropriate authorities. However, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner disputed the same. It is the case of the petitioner if the second respondent had obtained the licenses, the respondent would have informed the same to the petitioner when the petitioner submitted his complaint. This Court is of the considered opinion if the respondent failed to respond to the petitioner’s complaint, it cannot be stated that the second
2/4
respondent did not obtain the license. If the petitioner doubts the fact of license, then the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to obtain the relevant records under the Right to Information Act.
3. As the first respondent has submitted that the second respondent
has obtained the necessary clearances and certificates, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
4. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed. The petitioner is at liberty to invoke the Right to Information Act and proceed in accordance with law. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.07.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes KSA To The District Collector, Tenkasi.
3/4
S.SRIMATHY, J.
KSA
ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No. 8272 of 2023
DATED :22.07.2025
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a mandamus should issue to forbear the second respondent from extracting ground water for commercial purposes despite claimed licences.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
V.Balakrishnan
The District Collector, Tenkasi
Veluchamy
S.Srimathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
