Dismissed¶36

N.Ramachandran v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC23 Jan 2026REV.APLW(MD)/3/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review jurisdiction versus appeal; parens patriae; error apparent on the face of the record; Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 CPC; Section 114 CPC; M.Nithiya Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2017 (4) CTC 73; review application cannot be converted into appeal; correction by Division Bench; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; G.R.Swaminathan J.; W.P.(MD)No.8099 of 2022; dismissal with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

What did the court decide?

The Court had already taken a decision on merits in the writ petition and, despite the attractiveness of the review applicant's submissions, it could not notice any error apparent on the face of the record. ¶29

N.Ramachandran Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Rev.Apl.W(MD)No.3 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

Rev.Apl.W.(MD)No.3 of 2026 in W.P.(MD)No.8099 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)No.36 of 2026

N.Ramachandran

... Petitioner

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George,

¶11

Chennai.

¶12

2.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶13

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur Division, Melur, Madurai District.

¶14

4.The Tahsildar, Melur Taluk Office, Madurai District, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

Prayer:

¶18

Rev.Apl.W(MD)No.3 of 2026

¶19

Prayer: Review Application is filed under Order XLVII, Rules 1 and 2

¶20

of the Civil Procedure Code r/w. Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, to review the order dated 04.11.2025 in W.P.(MD).8099 of 2022 on the file

¶21

of this Court and allow this Review Application.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vishnuvardhan For Respondents : Mr.S.Shaji Bino, Spl. Government Pleader.

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Heard both sides.

¶25

2.The learned counsel for the review applicant submits that this

¶26

Court ought to have applied the principle of parens patriae and awarded

¶27

relief. He relies on the decision reported in 2017 (4) CTC 73 (M.Nithiya

¶28

Vs. State of Tamil Nadu) .

¶29

3.The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the review applicant are undoubtedly attractive. But then, I have taken a decision on merits and I am not in a position to notice any error apparent on the face of record. May be my view is incorrect. But then, correction

¶30

2/4

¶31

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

¶32

Rev.Apl.W(MD)No.3 of 2026

¶33

can be made only by the Hon'ble Division Bench on appeal. The review

¶34

applicant cannot convert this review application into an appeal.

¶35

4.With the aforesaid observations, this review application is