Dismissed¶60

M.Venkatesan, v. The District Collector

Madras HC2 Jun 2026WP/20734/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gudiyatham playground construction; writ of mandamus; Article 226; public interest litigation misuse; vague assertions; half-baked information; indoor sports facility allegation; small administrative block boundary wall; open to sky; public trust doctrine; Articles 21, 48A, 51A(g); Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B.; Municipal Higher Secondary School Playground; Vellore District; Gudiyatham Municipality; dismissed with no costs; interim application closed; Madras High Court Division Bench.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief to the petitioner; the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs and the interim application stands closed. However, the respondents were directed to ensure the administrative block construction remains strictly confined to the boundary area and does not encroach upon the open playground in any manner.

M.Venkatesan, Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the second respondent's construction activity at the existing open cricket and football ground at the Municipal Higher Secondary School Playground, Railway Station Road, Gudiyatham, Vellore District amounts to conversion of the open public playground into an indoor sports facility, warranting a writ of mandamus to stop all construction and preserve the land as an open public playground without permanent construction. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The petitioner filed the public interest litigation without ascertaining the true facts or the actual scope of the construction work, proceeding on half-baked information and rumours.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

As established by the respondents based on the map produced in court, the construction is strictly limited to a small administrative block near the boundary wall, leaving the playground intact and open to the sky.

¶41

Key takeaways

Public interest litigation is not a tool to be weaponised based on misinformation, suspicion, or vague assertions; courts consistently deprecate the practice of entertaining PILs filed without proper homework and factual investigation.ratio¶46
Since the playground is nowhere disturbed and remains open to the sky, the very foundation of the writ petition collapses.ratio¶54
The construction of a small administrative block near the boundary wall does not warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially where the open playground remains undisturbed and open to the sky for the public.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (order by Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ, with G. Arul Murugan, J concurring), WP No.20734 of 2026, decided 02.06.2026: Public interest litigation by M. Venkatesan seeking a writ of mandamus under Article 226 to stop all construction at the existing cricket and football ground at the Municipal Higher Secondary School Playground, Railway Station Road, Gudiyatham, Vellore District, alleging conversion of the 75-year-old open playground into an indoor sports facility and violation of the public trust doctrine and Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g). The Government Pleader clarified that only a small administrative block abutting the boundary wall was being constructed and a map produced in court confirmed the ground remained intact and open to the sky. Finding the petition founded on half-baked information, rumours and vague assertions, and applying the principles in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., (2004) 3 SCC 349, the Court held no illegal action was established and dismissed the writ petition (no costs; interim application closed), while directing the respondents to confine the administrative block strictly to the boundary area without encroaching on the open playground.

¶1

W.P.No.20734 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02.06.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶7

WP No.20734 of 2026 and WMP No .22353 of 2026

¶8

M.Venkatesan, S/o.Munisami, No.87/99, Buddhar Nagar, Gudiyatham – 632602, Vellore District.

¶9

Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

The District Collector, District Collectorate, Sathuvachari, Vellore-632009.

¶12

The Municipal Commissioner, Gudiyatham Municipality, Municipal Office, No.1, R.S.Road, Gudiyatham-632602.

¶13

The Principal Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600009.

¶14

_______________ Page 1 of 10_

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.20734 of 2026

¶17

The Principal Secretary to Government, Youth Welfare and Sports Development Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600009.

¶18

Respondent(s)

¶19

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to forthwith stop all construction activities being carried out at the existing cricket and football ground situated in Municipal Higher Secondary School Playground, Railway Station Road, Gudiyatham, Vellore District and consequently, direct the second respondent, to preserve and maintain the said land as an open public playground without any permanent construction.

¶20

For Petitioner(s): M/s.T.Dharani

¶21

For Respondent(s):Mr.Mohammed Fayaz Ali Government Pleader

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(Order of the court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶24

The petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under the garb of a public interest litigation. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to restrain the second respondent from carrying out construction activities at the existing open cricket and football

¶25

_______________ Page 2 of 10_

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.20734 of 2026

¶28

ground situated at the Municipal Higher Secondary School Playground, Railway Station Road, Gudiyatham, Vellore District, alleging that the open playground is being converted into an indoor sports facility.

¶29

2.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent has initiated construction activities to establish an indoor sports facility within the open playground. It is asserted that the subject land has been a public playground used by school children, youth, and senior citizens for the last 75 years. According to the petitioner, the proposed permanent construction will destroy the open green space, eliminate free access to the public, affect environmental balance, and violate the public trust doctrine as well as Articles 21, 48A, and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India.

¶30

2.2. Ventilating the aforesaid grievance, the petitioner

¶31

submitted a representation dated 11.02.2026. Since no effective action was taken to stop the construction, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶32

_______________ Page 3 of 10_

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.20734 of 2026

¶35

3.1. Learned Government Pleader, who entered appearance on behalf of the respondents, at the outset, submitted that the allegations raised by the petitioner are completely baseless, exaggerated, and stem from a gross misrepresentation of facts. He further submitted that no construction activity is being undertaken to convert the playground into an indoor sports facility and that a small administrative block alone is being constructed near the boundary wall of the premises to serve the administrative requirements.

¶36

3.2. Learned Government Pleader further clarified that the vast area of the playground is nowhere disturbed and remains completely open to the sky. The construction of the minor administrative building abutting the boundary wall does not in any way impinge upon the open playing area, nor does it deprive the public or the students of their right to use the ground for outdoor sports and recreation.

¶37

_______________ Page 4 of 10_

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.20734 of 2026

¶40

We have heard learned counsel on either side and perused the writ petition and the map placed on record.

¶41

It is a matter of record that the petitioner has approached this court with the sweeping allegation that the 75-year-old open playground is being converted into a closed indoor sports facility, thereby destroying the open green space. However, as established by the respondents based on the map produced today, the actual facts on the ground are entirely contrary to the petitioner's assertions. The construction is strictly limited to a small administrative block near the boundary wall, leaving the playground intact and open to the sky.

¶42

It is evident from the records that the petitioner has filed the present public interest litigation without ascertaining the true facts or the actual scope of the construction work. The petitioner has proceeded on half-baked information and rumors, without making any effort to visit the site, examine the approved plans, or verify the facts from the competent authorities before rushing to this court.

¶43

_______________ Page 5 of 10_

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.No.20734 of 2026

¶46

The Supreme Court designed public interest litigation as a noble jurisdiction to guarantee justice for marginalized groups and safeguard the public interest. However, it is not a tool to be weaponized based on misinformation, suspicion, or vague assertions. The courts have consistently deprecated the practice of entertaining public interest litigations filed without proper homework and factual investigation. In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B.¹ , the Supreme Court held thus:

¶47

“14. The court has to be satisfied about : (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite . The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests : (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others ; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the

¶48

1 (2004) 3 SCC 349

¶49

Page 6 of 10

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.No.20734 of 2026

¶52

guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.”

¶53

[emphasis supplied]

¶54

In the instant case, it is manifestly clear that the petitioner has filed this public interest litigation based on vague assertions and a complete misconception of the construction activity. Without ascertaining the actual facts, the petitioner has approached this court alleging the destruction of a public playground. Since the playground is nowhere disturbed and remains open to the sky, the very foundation of the writ petition collapses.

¶55

In fine, the writ petition is wholly misconceived. The petitioner has failed to establish any illegal action on the part of the respondents. The construction of a small administrative block near

¶56

_______________ Page 7 of 10_

¶57

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

¶58

W.P.No.20734 of 2026

¶59

the boundary wall does not warrant the interference of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when the open playground remains undisturbed and open to the sky for the public. The respondents are, however, directed to ensure that the construction of the administrative block is strictly confined to the boundary area, as represented before this court, and does not encroach upon the open playground area in any manner.

¶60

In view of the foregoing discussions, the writ petition is dismissed as being based on incorrect facts and vague assertions. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim application stands closed.

¶61

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 02.06.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sasi

¶62

_______________ Page 8 of 10_

¶63

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

¶64

W.P.No.20734 of 2026

¶65

To:

¶66