Disposed¶31

D.Manimekalai v. The District collector

Madras HC2 Apr 2026WP/12406/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension revocation; reinstatement in service; disposal of representation; Deputy Tahsildar; VAO bribe/trap proceedings; patta application; Article 226 mandamus; six-week direction to consider representation; Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Limited (SC, C.A.No.10856/2016 dated 23.1.2025); District Collector Erode; Gobichettipalayam Taluk; TNPSC recruit. Relevant for advocates seeking time-bound directions on consideration of representations for revocation of suspension.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.02.2026 on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within six weeks of receipt of a copy of the order; writ petition disposed of with no costs. ¶31

D.Manimekalai Vs The District collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 12406 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

WP No. 12406 of 2026

¶7

D.Manimekalai (Under suspension) W/o.R.Murugavel zonal Deputy Tahsildar-1, Taluk office Gobichettipalayam Taluk

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

The District collector Erode Erode District

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 12.2.2026 seeking revocation of the order of suspension and reinstatement in service in the light of the law laid down by the Honble Apex court in C.A.No.10856/2016 dated 23.1.2025 in the case of Bhupinder Singh VS.Unitech Limited and others

¶13

For Petitioner(s): K.N.Pandian A.V.Balusamy J.Melwin Jabaz For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Ganesan, AGP

¶14

ORDER

¶15

(1) The above writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a writ of mandamus

¶16

to direct the respondent to dispose of her representation dated 12.02.2026,

¶17

Page1 of 5

¶18

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

¶19

WP No. 12406 of 2026

¶20

seeking revocation of the order of suspension and reinstatement in service in the light of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in C.A.No.10856/2016 dated 23.1.2025 [Bhupinder Singh Vs. Unitech

¶21

Limited and others].

¶22

(2) Mr.P.Ganesan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

¶23

(3) With the consent of the learned counsels on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶24

(4) The case of the petitioner in brief is that, she joined the Revenue Department as PRO Assistant on 12.12.2012, through TNPSC and after rendering 13 years of service, she was promoted to the post of Deputy Tahsildar on 11.01.2023. It is her further case that while she was serving as Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District, one Jaya, submitted an online application in the name of Eswari, for issuance of patta in respect of her family property in S.No.415-5A and 415-5B. The said application was returned for certain defects and after compliance, the application was resubmitted and on the recommendations of one Sasikumar, VAO, Kalingiyam-B Village, patta was issued to Jaya. The petitioner further states that the VAO, by misusing the name of the petitioner, collected bribe from the said Jaya and based on a complaint and the trap proceedings, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 12.11.2025, vide proceedings of the respondent herein. The petitioner

¶25

Page2 of 5

¶26

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

¶27

WP No. 12406 of 2026

¶28

states that the entire allegation revolves around the VAO and the trap was conducted only with the VAO and he was caught red handed. The petitioner, vide her representation dated 12.02.2026, narrated the aforesaid facts in brief and submitted the same to the respondent, seeking revocation of the suspension and reinstatement in service in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. Since the said representation did not evoke any response, the petitioner left with no other option, had approached this Court by filing the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

¶29

(5) Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

¶30

(6) In view of the limited prayer sought for by the petitioner, this Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the petitioner’s claim, directs the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12.02.2026, on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31