T.Thulasimani Vs the Tahsildar

4.M/s.Velava Hallow Block Company, Represented by its Proprietor Sivasubramanian, R.S.No.285/4, Sellakumarajapalayam, Murungaikattuvalasu, Poondurai Semoor Village, Modakkurichi Taluk, Erode District – 638 104.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the 4 th respondent after conducting joint field inspection in the premises where the construction activities are

¶16

Page No.1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.12661 of 2026

¶19

presently being carried out for the proposed establishment of the unit in the name and style of M/s.Velava Hallow Block Company at R.S.No.285/4, Sellakumarapalayam, Murungaikattuvalasu, Poondraui Semoor Village, Modakkurichi Taluk, Erode District – 638 104 after considering the representation of the petitioner dated 02.03.2026 in accordance with law within a stipulated timeframe.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.N.S.Suganthan For Respondents : Mr.N.Naveen Kumar Government Advocate [R1] Ms.K.Vasanthamala Standing Counsel [R2 & R3] Notice dispensed with [R4] *****

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Writ Petition has been filed under the apprehension that the

¶23

4th respondent is setting up a hollow blocks factory in the premises morefully disclosed in the prayer to this writ petition in a residential area, which is illegal.

¶24

The petitioner claims that he is residing in the nearby area to

¶25

the address where the 4 th respondent is proposing to set-up a hollow blocks factory. The petitioner had given a representation on 02.03.2026 to the respondents 1 to 3 objecting to the setting up of the hollow blocks factory by the 4 th respondent. According to the petitioner, the objections

¶26

Page No.2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.12661 of 2026

¶29

have not been considered by the official respondents. Only under those circumstances, this writ petition has been filed.

¶30

3. Mr.N.Naveen Kumar, learned Government Advocate, accepts

¶31

notice on behalf of the 1 st respondent and Ms.K.Vasanthamala, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3. Since no adverse order is passed against the 4 th respondent in this writ petition, notice to the 4 th respondent is dispensed with by this Court.

¶32

4. The petitioner has filed supporting documents along with this writ petition in respect of her contention that the 4 th respondent is setting up a hollow blocks factory in the premises morefully disclosed in the prayer to this writ petition illegally in a residential area. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the same.

¶33

5. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the petitioner’s objections as raised in her representation, dated 02.03.2026 are considered by the official respondents as and when any permission is sought by the 4 th respondent to set-up the hollow blocks factory in the premises morefully disclosed in the prayer to this writ petition.

¶34

Page No.3 of 6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.12661 of 2026

¶37

6. For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the official respondents, namely the respondents 1 to 3 to put on notice the petitioner as and when any application has been submitted by the 4 th respondent seeking grant of license/permission to set-up a hollow blocks factory in the premises morefully disclosed in the prayer to this writ petition, and only after giving due consideration to the objections submitted by the petitioner and after affording one personal hearing to the petitioner, the official respondents 1 to 3 are granted authority to grant license to the 4 th respondent for setting up hollow blocks factory at the premises morefully disclosed in the prayer to this writ petition. While considering the 4 th respondent’s application seeking grant of license, necessarily, the objections of the petitioner as raised in her representation dated 02.03.2026 have to be considered on merits and in accordance with law and in case, the official respondents decide to reject the petitioner’s objections, reasons have to be given by the official respondents as to why the objections of the petitioner are rejected. No costs.

¶38

10.04.2026

¶39

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No sp

¶40

Page No.4 of 6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.12661 of 2026

¶43

To