Nandhakumar Vs The District Collector

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 01.09.2025 and consequently grant permission to carry out repair maintenance work of the statue of Freedom Fighter Maveeran Sundaralinga Kudumbanar situated at Pallapalayam Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District, at the cost of the petitioner, in accordance with law and Government guidelines within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.

¶20

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Lal Devasagayam S For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Elayarajkumar, Govt. Counsel for R1 to R3 & R6 Mr.A.Amarnath Public Prosecutor for R4 & R5

¶21

ORDER

¶22

By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶23

The present writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 01.09.2025 and consequently grant permission to carry out repair maintenance work of the statue of Freedom Fighter Maveeran Sundaralinga Kudumbanar situated at Pallapalayam Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District, at the cost of the petitioner, in accordance with law and Government guidelines within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.

¶24

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed a representation on 01.09.2025 seeking permission to carry out

¶25

Page2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

WP No. 18569 of 2026

¶28

repair work of the statue of Freedom Fighter Maveeran Sundaralinga Kudumbanar. However, the said representation has not been considered so far by respondents 1 to 3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

¶29

At the outset, it was submitted by the learned Government Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 & 6 that the representation dated 01.09.2025 made by petitioner would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed within a time frame fixed by this Court, which was agreed to by the learned counsel for petitioner.

¶30

In view of the same, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited relief sought for in this Writ Petition, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation dated 01.09.2025 made by the petitioner on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested persons/stake holders, including rival claimants, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the representation and it is open to the concerned respondents to consider the representation on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶31

__________ Page3 of 4

¶32

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

¶33

WP No. 18569 of 2026

¶34

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶35

GSK

¶36

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.