Dismissed¶36

V.Arvindh v. The District collector

Madras HC12 Mar 2026WP/9547/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No.9547 of 2026; V.ARVINDH v. District Collector, Salem and others; Madras High Court; writ of mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; public pathway obstruction and damage; survey Nos.691/1, 691/2, 691/3; Kaveripalayam village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District; sixth respondent Paramasivam; withdrawal of petition with liberty to approach civil court; petition dismissed; no order as to costs; decision dated 12.03.2026; order by Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari with G.Arul Murugan, J.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to approach the civil court; no order as to costs. ¶36

V.Arvindh Vs The District collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No.9547 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12.03.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,

¶6

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶9

WP No.9547 of 2026

¶10

V.ARVINDH

¶11

S/o.Venkataraman Res.at No.326, Ram Nivas Narayana Pillai Road Peramanur, Salem-636 007

¶12

: Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

1.The District collector

¶15

Salem District collector office, Salem

¶16

2.The District Superintendent of police District police office, Salem District

¶17

3.The Assistant Director

¶18

Town and country planning office Thalavai patty village, Salem West Taluk, Salem District

¶19

The Block Development officer Kolathur panchayat union Mettur Taluk, Salem District

¶20

5.The Inspector of police Kolathur police station Mettur Taluk, Salem District

¶21

Page 1 of 4

¶22

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

¶23

WP No.9547 of 2026

¶24

6.Paramasivam S/o.Krishnasamy SF No.691/1,Kaveripuram Mettur Taluk, Salem District

¶25

: Respondents

¶26

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 6 to take immediate and appropriate action against the 6th respondent Mr.Paramasivam and his men for unlawully obstructing and damaging the public pathyway in survey Nos.691/1, 691/2 and 691/3, Kaveripalayam village, Mettur Taluk,Salem District morefully described in the petition schedule hereunder and to restore the said pathway for free public use.

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Velu For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent No.5

¶28

Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman, Government Advocate, for respondents 1 to 4

¶29

Mr.D.Selvaraju for Mr.S.Viajayakumar, for respondent No.6.

¶30

ORDER

¶31

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

¶32

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the civil court.

¶33

Page 2 of 4

¶34

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

¶35

WP No.9547 of 2026

¶36

In view of the same, the petition stands dismissed with liberty

¶37

as sought for. There will be no order as to costs.

¶38

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 12.03.2026

¶39

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No tar

¶40

¶41

1.The District collector

¶42

Salem District Collector Office, Salem

¶43

2.The District Superintendent of police District police office, Salem District

¶44

3.The Assistant Director Town and country planning office Thalavai patty village, Salem West Taluk, Salem District

¶45

The Block Development officer Kolathur panchayat union Mettur Taluk, Salem District

¶46

5.The Inspector of police Kolathur police station Mettur Taluk, Salem District

¶47

Page 3 of 4

¶48

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

¶49

WP No.9547 of 2026

¶50

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

(tar)

WP No.9547 of 2026

12.03.2026

Page 4 of 4

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

V.Arvindh v. The District collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Arvindh v. The District collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Subramanian Vs The Commissioner

S.Radhakrishnan Vs the Member Secretary

K.M.a.Mohamed Sulaiman Vs the Commissioner

Tamil Nadu People service Trust Vs The District collector

Mgm Anand Vs The Assistant Director

D.Vijayabharathy Vs Mr. Aftab Rasool, I.A.S.