Disposed

Peri.Subramani v. The Commissioner

Madras HC22 Apr 2026WP(MD)/11829/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court, by consent, disposed of a writ petition seeking directions to remove encroachments and prohibit Jallikattu on petitioner's land. The High Court directed an Assistant Commissioner to consider representations and pass appropriate orders on merits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Sixth Respondent to dispose of petitioner's representations within three months and pass orders on merits after personal hearing.

Peri.Subramani Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.11829 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.04.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.11829 of 2026 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)No.8966 of 2026

¶8

Peri. Subramani ... Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

1.The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, No. 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.

¶11

2.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶12

3.The District Revenue Officer/ Additional District Magistrate, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶13

4.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶14

1/7

¶15

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

¶16

5.The Tahsildar, Thiruppathur Taluk, Thiruppathur, Sivagangai District.

¶17

W.P(MD)No.11829 of 2026

¶18

6.The Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶19

7.The Inspector of Police, Poolankurichi Police Station, Poolankurichi, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents

¶20

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the encroachments in S.Nos. 139/7, 139/8, 168/7 and 179/2 at Poolankurichi Village, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District, and further direct the respondents 4 and 7 that not to grant any permission to conduct Jallikattu in the petitioners service punja lands to anyone, by considering the petitioners representation dated 13.03.2026 and 24.03.2026.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.Anantha Murugan For R1 to R3, R5 & R6 : Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader For R4 & R7 : Mr.K.Sanjay Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶22

2/7

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

W.P(MD)No.11829 of 2026

¶26

( Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. )

¶27

The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to remove the encroachments in S.Nos. 139/7, 139/8, 168/7 and 179/2 at Poolankurichi Village, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District, and further direct the respondents 4 and 7 that not to grant any permission to conduct Jallikattu in the petitioners service punja lands to anyone, by considering the petitioner's representations dated 13.03.2026 and 24.03.2026.

¶28

2.By consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶29

3.Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader takes

¶30

notice for the respondents 1 to 3, 5 & 6. Mr.K.Sanjay Gandhi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 4 & 7.

¶31

3/7

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD)No.11829 of 2026

¶34

4.The petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondents on 13.03.2026 and 24.03.2026 and filed this writ petition for a mandamus to consider his representations.

¶35

5.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

¶36

sixth respondent submitted that the representation of the petitioner will be disposed of, within a time frame.

¶37

6. In view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, directs the sixth respondent to dispose of the representations made by the petitioner dated 13.03.2026 and 24.03.2026 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

4/7

¶39

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

¶40

W.P(MD)No.11829 of 2026

¶41

7.With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No

¶42

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

[N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.] 22.04.2026

¶44

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes am

¶45

5/7

¶46

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

¶47

¶48

W.P(MD)No.11829 of 2026

¶49

1.The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, No. 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.

¶50

2.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶51

3.The District Revenue Officer/ Additional District Magistrate, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶52

4.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶53

5.The Tahsildar, Thiruppathur Taluk, Thiruppathur, Sivagangai District.

¶54

6.The Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶55

7.The Inspector of Police, Poolankurichi Police Station, Poolankurichi, Sivagangai District.

¶56

6/7

¶57

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

¶58

W.P(MD)No.11829 of 2026

¶59

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

¶60

¶61

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.11829 of 2026

¶62

DATED : 22.04.2026

¶63

7/7

¶64

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

Peri.Subramani v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peri.Subramani v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Gulam Muhamed Vs The District Collector/Monitoring Committee

The Management, Vs The General Secretary

N.Anandavel, Vs The District Collector

M.Raju Vs The District Collector

J. Annammal Vs The District Collector

Senthurpandian Vs The District Collector