Dismissed

K.Duraipandi v. The District Collector

Madras HC2 Jun 2026WP(MD)/14551/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a mandamus restraining the construction of a petrol bunk near a water body. The court held that the District Revenue Officer must consider relevant factors before issuing a No Objection Certificate, and thus, the prayer could not be granted in the writ itself.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer and writ petition dismissed. No costs.

K.Duraipandi Vs The District Collector — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P(MD)No.14551 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 02.06.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.14551 of 2026

K.Duraipandi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶11

2.The Tahsildar, Marungapuri Taluk, Trichy District.

¶12

3.Mathivanan

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents not to permit constructing Petrol Bulk in Survey Nos.69/3D1C, 69/2 situated at Thuvarankurichi Village, Marungapuri Taluk, Trichy District and to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.04.2026.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Vadivel

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

W.P(MD)No.14551 of 2026

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan Government Pleader for R.1 & R.2

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. Considering the nature of relief to be granted, issuance of notice to the third respondent is dispensed with.

¶22

2.The writ petitioner is a resident of Karaippatti Village. According to him, the third respondent is proposing to construct a petrol bunk in the petition mentioned survey numbers and the same should be restrained. When we enquired about the basis for such a request, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a water body is located in the vicinity of the proposed site.

¶23

3.Admittedly, the proposed construction is to come up only on the third respondent's patta land. It is for the jurisdictional District Revenue Officer to take into account all the relevant factors before issuing “No Objection Certificate”. The prayer sought for cannot be granted.

¶24

2/4

¶25

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

¶26

W.P(MD)No.14551 of 2026

¶27

4.This Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶28

[G.R.S., J.] [B.P., J.] 02.06.2026

¶29

NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No MGA

¶30

¶31

1.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶32

2.The Tahsildar, Marungapuri Taluk, Trichy District.

¶33

3/4

¶34

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

¶35

W.P(MD)No.14551 of 2026

¶36

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J

and

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

MGA

W.P(MD)No.14551 of 2026

¶41

02.06.2026

¶42

4/4

¶43

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

K.Duraipandi v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Duraipandi v. The District Collector

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

Prabukrishnan Vs The District Collector

Saravanakumar Vs The Additional Chief Secretary

Krishnan Vs The District Collector

Nagarathinam, Vs The District Collector

Murugan Vs the Tahsildar

Fathimuthu Vs The District Collector