Dismissed¶¶34

S.Govindaraj v. G.Venkatachalam

Madras HC9 Jan 2026WA/3098/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal dismissed as frivolous; challenge to Single Judge's order passed on consent of parties; no ground or affidavit regarding counsel's consent in memo of appeal; Clause 15 Letters Patent appeal; respondents include Salem district panchayat officials (Inspector of Panchayat/District Collector, Assistant Director (Panchayats), Commissioner Taramangalam Panchayat Union); interim applications C.M.P.Nos.25229 & 26146 of 2025 dismissed; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

This appeal is completely frivolous and baseless; the challenge is to an order passed based on the consent of parties and respective counsel, which is apparently clear from the order passed by the learned Single Judge. ¶¶25

S.Govindaraj Vs G.Venkatachalam — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.A.No.3098 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.01.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶7

W.A.No.3098 of 2025 &

¶8

C.M.P.No.25229 & 26146 of 2025

¶9

S.Govindaraj S/o. Sellamuthu Pappampadi Village, Omalur Taluk Salem District.

¶10

Appellant(s)

¶11

¶12

G.Venkatachalam S/o. Govindasamy Nathiyampatty Kattu Valavu Pappampadi Village Chinnappampatty Post Omalur Taluk, Salem District.

¶13

The Inspector of Panchayat Cum District Collector Salem District Salem 636001.

¶14

The Assistant Director (Panchayats) District Collectorate Salem 636001.

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

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

¶17

W.A.No.3098 of 2025

¶18

The Commissioner Taramangalam Panchayat Union Omalur Taluk Salem District 636306.

¶19

Respondent(s)

¶20

Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.14130 of 2025 dated 25.09.2025.

¶21

For Appellant(s): Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy for Respondent-1

¶22

Mr.G.Athisaya For Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh Special Government Pleader for Respondents 2 to 4

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶25

This appeal is completely frivolous and baseless. Challenge is

¶26

to the order passed based on the consent of parties and respective counsel for the parties, which is apparently clear from the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶27

Even though there was no ground taken in the memo of

¶28

Page 2 of 5

¶29

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

¶30

W.A.No.3098 of 2025

¶31

appeal that there was no consent given by learned counsel, much less any affidavit of counsel, it appears that during the course of hearing of interim application, such statement was made.

¶32