Disposed¶30

Dhanasekar v. the District Collector

Madras HC23 Feb 2026WP/7201/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ of Mandamus; Article 226; revocation of suspension; suspension order dated 17.05.2025; representation dated 31.10.2025; Village Administrative Officer; Thooravalur Village; Vridhachalam Taluk; Cuddalore; District Collector; Revenue Divsional Officer; Tashildar; FIR; illegal gratification; Velayutham; six weeks; opportunity of hearing; WP No. 7201 of 2026; M. Dhandapani; disposed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.10.2025 on its own merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within six weeks, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested parties; no order as to costs. ¶30

Dhanasekar Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.10.2025 seeking revocation of the suspension order.

¶17

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.10.2025 on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Appropriate orders were to be passed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested parties.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Single-judge order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (M. Dhandapani, J.), dated 23-02-2026, disposing of WP No. 7201 of 2026 filed by Dhanasekar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus. The petitioner, serving as Village Administrative Officer at Thooravalur Village, Vridhachalam Taluk, was placed under suspension by order dated 17.05.2025 after an FIR was registered on a complaint by one Velayutham alleging demand of illegal gratification for surveying certain lands; his representation dated 31.10.2025 to the District Collector, Cuddalore, the Revenue Divsional Officer and the Tashildar, Vridhachalam, seeking revocation of suspension had not been considered. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court directed the respondents to consider the representation on its own merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within six weeks of receipt of a copy of the order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested parties; the writ petition stood disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶1

WP No. 7201 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

WP No. 7201 of 2026

Dhanasekar

..Petitioner(s)

The District Collector Cuddalore.

¶11

The Revenue Divsional Officer Vridhachalam, Cuddalore

¶12

The Tashildar Vridhachalam Cuddalore.

¶13

..Respondent(s)

¶14

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 31.10.2025 seeking for revocation of suspension order.

¶15

For Petitioner(s): M/s.R.Poornima For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Balathandayutham, Special Government Pleader

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 31.10.2025 seeking for revocation of suspension order.

¶18

Page1 of 4

¶19

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

¶20

WP No. 7201 of 2026

¶21

Mr.P.Balathandayutham, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner that while he was serving as a Village Administrative Officer at Thooravalur Village, Vridhachalam Taluk, an FIR was registered against him on the basis of the false complaint lodged by one Velayutham due to personal enmity alleging demand of illegal gratification for surveying certain lands and consequently, he was placed under suspension by order dated 17.05.2025. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 31.10.2025 to the respondents seeking revocation of suspension. However, the said representation was not considered so far. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, it would suffice, if this Court issues a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 31.10.2025 and pass appropriate orders on the same within the time that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶24

On the above contention, this Court heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶25

__________ Page2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

WP No. 7201 of 2026

¶28

In view of the limited relief sought for in this Writ Petition, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 31.10.2025 on its

¶29

own merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested parties.

¶30