Dismissed¶31

V.Maala Raajan, v. The District Collector

Madras HC1 Jun 2026WP/15197/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, G.K. Ilanthiraiyan J., WP No. 15197 of 2018, decided 01-06-2026. V.Maala Raajan v. District Collector, Coimbatore and others. Mandamus petition under Article 226 read with Article 21 seeking police protection against private respondents 4 to 9 for alleged vandalism of petitioner's land (S.F.No.245/2A, Pooluvapatti Village, Coimbatore South Taluk) and consideration of 2018 representations. Held: representation stale after eight-year lapse, cannot be considered; writ petition dismissed with liberty to file fresh representation on fresh cause of action; connected W.M.P.No.18040 of 2018 closed; no costs. No precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to submit a fresh representation seeking police protection on fresh cause of action, if any ¶31

V.Maala Raajan, Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 15197 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN WP No. 15197 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.18040 of 2018

¶6

V.Maala Raajan, W/o.Dr.S.Varadharajan, 60 Gandhi Street, Balaranganathapuram, Peelamedu, Coimbatore 641 004

¶7

..Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore 641 018

¶10

The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore Rural, Coimbatore District

¶11

The Inspector of Police, Alandurai Police Station, Coimbatore 641 010

¶12

K.Poovathal, W/o.Late Kumarasamy Gounder, 3/5 Mariamman Koil Street, Thennamanallur 641 009, Thondamuthur Via, Coimbatore District

¶13

Thirugnanasambandam @ Anandan, S/o.Late Kumarasamy Gounder, 51, A1, Bharathiyar Road, Maniakkaranpalayam, Ganapathy 641 006, Coimbatore District

¶14

__________ Page1 of 4

¶15

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

¶16

WP No. 15197 of 2018

¶17

T.P.Praveenkumar, S/o.Late M.Ponnusamy, 3/90, Mariamman Koil Street, Thennamanallur 641 009, Thondamuthur Via, Coimbatore District

¶18

T.Gopalakrishnan, S/o.Thangaraj, 5/283, Annur Road, Thennampalayam, Coimbatore 641 407

¶19

K.Vijayakumar, S/o.Kandasamy, Therkal Thottam, 58, Near Ellan Nagar, Kalapatty, Coimbatore 641 048

¶20

R.Chandru Jakavi, S/o.U.Rajendran, 5/554/1, Gandhi Illam, Nayakkanpalayam, Coimbatore 641 020, Coimbatore District

¶21

..Respondents

¶22

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to protect the petitioner’s right to life and property by taking swift action against the respondents 4 to 9 who have committed in vandalism in the petitioner’s property measuring 95 ½ cents bearing S.F. No. 245/2A, Pooluvapatti Village, Coimbatore South Taluk and ensure compliance of Article 21 of the constitution, by considering her representations dated 27.05.2018 and 12.06.2018.

¶23

For Petitioner:	M/s.N.Manokaran
For Respondents:	Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar
	Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu
	(Criminal Side) for R1 to R3
	Mr.S.Arjun for R4, R6 to R9

¶24

__________ Page2 of 4

¶25

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

¶26

WP No. 15197 of 2018

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to protect the petitioner’s right to life and property by taking swift action against the respondents 4 to 9, who have allegedly committed acts of vandalism on the petitioner’s property measuring 95½ cents, bearing S.F.No.245/2A, situated at Pooluvapatti Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, and ensure compliance with Article 21 of the Constitution of India by considering her representations dated 27.05.2018 and 12.06.2018.

¶29

Heard Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) and Mr.S.Arjun, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4, 6 to 9. Perused the materials available on record.

¶30

It is observed that after a lapse of eight years, the representation

¶31

submitted by the petitioner seeking police protection cannot be considered. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh representation seeking police protection on fresh cause of action, if any. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶32

01-06-2026

¶33

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

¶34

LPP

¶35

__________ Page3 of 4

¶36

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

¶37

WP No. 15197 of 2018