M.Moorthy Vs the District Collector

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st,2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents to provide an alternative route to transport the mineral resources from the quarry by the 7th Respondent in Onambakkam Panchayat, immediately to demolish the road if already the road has constructed on Government land approximately of 4 acres through our village, again restore that Land into a Lake Water inflow area and an area rich in natural resources and also considering the Representation Letter dated 22.07.2024, 16.09.2024, 19.09.2024 and 25.08.2025, within a time limit that may be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.

¶25

For Petitioner: Mr.M.Abivarthan

¶26

For Respondents: Mr.K.Surendar Government Advocate for R1 to R5

¶27

ORDER

¶28

( Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J. )

¶29

Under the guise of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), one Moorthy, has

¶30

filed this writ petition questioning the resolution passed by the local panchayat

¶31

to lay a new road, alleging that it was done to favour the private interest of the

¶32

7^th respondent.

¶33

Page2 of 6

¶34

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

¶35

WP No. 26660 of 2026

¶36

2. According to the petitioner, the newly laid road, spanning approximately four acres, is intended exclusively for transporting minerals mined by the 7^th respondent from a nearby village. Hence, the same has to be prevented.

¶37

3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents submits that the newly laid road is one kilometer length and 5.5 meters in width for public transport and not for the exclusive use of the 7^th respondent. Furthermore, the objection of the writ petitioner under the guise of a Public Interest Litigation is to prevent transport of minerals by the 7^th respondent, who holds a valid license to mine. He further submits that the contention of the writ petitioner that four acres of land solely as a quarry path is factually incorrect, as the road has been laid under the Rural Road Development Fund after due resolution passed by the local panchayat.

¶38

4. On hearing the submissions, we find that no public interest is involved in this writ petition. The petitioner is challenging the laying of a road for public transport, which is being constructed substantially using the public funds. The petitioner’s intention for challenging the laying of road and the reason stated in his objection does not carry any merit. Hence, this Writ Petition

¶39

stands dismissed.

¶40

Page3 of 6

¶41

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

¶42

WP No. 26660 of 2026

¶43

5. However, we clarify that the dismissal of the writ petition should

¶44

not be construed as a tacit approval to the 7^th respondent’s quarry operation. The mining operations, if any, should be in strict compliance of the regulations without disturbing the natural resources and water supply. We dismiss this writ petition solely on the ground that the petitioner’s objection to the public road carry no merit and the petitioner has come to this Court through this PIL without any bonafide reason. The petitioner is instructed not to misuse the PIL jurisdiction in the future. If any frivolous petition is filed by him in future, it will be viewed seriously.

¶45

(Dr.G.J.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 14-07-2026

¶46

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

¶47

rpl

¶48

To

¶49

1.The District Collector District Collector Office, GST Road, Chengalpattu-603 001.

¶50

2.The Assistant Director Department of Geology and Mining, 4^th Floor, District Collector Office, GST Road, Chengalpattu-603 001.