Allowed
Petchimuthu R v. The District Collector
Madras HCWP(MD)/35035/2025
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P(MD)No.35035 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
Writ Petition(MD)No.35035 of 2025
and
W.M.P(MD)No.27715 of 2025
R.Petchimuthu
.. Petitioner
Vs
Tenkasi District.
..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
1/6
W.P(MD)No.35035 of 2025
to call for the records related to the impugned proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 06.08.2025, 18.08.2025, 25.10.2025 and the undated communication and quash them all and consequently forbear the respondents from interfering with the peaceful functioning of the petitioner's country hen layer poultry farm in his private property in Melapavoor Village and pass such further or other orders as this court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. (Prayer is amended vide court order dated 11.03.2026 in WMP(MD)No.5683 of 2026).
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Dilipkumar for Mr.K.R.Bharathikannan For Respondents : Mr.M.Ajmalkhan Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mrs.P.B.Ahamed Yasmin Parvin Govt. Advocate for R1
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings dated 06.08.2025, 18.08.2025, 25.10.2025, and the undated communication issued by the fourth respondent, whereby the petitioner was called upon to shift the poultry farm situated adjacent to the school.
2.The petitioner is running a poultry farm in Door Nos.2/104 and 2/106, comprised in Survey No.950/1A1A1, situated at Melappavur Village and Panchayat, Keelapavur Panchayat Union, 2/6
W.P(MD)No.35035 of 2025
Tenkasi District, measuring an extent of 900 sq. ft. Adjacent to the petitioner’s poultry farm, there is a Government Higher Secondary School in which about 650 students are pursuing their education.
3.Based on a complaint lodged by the school authorities stating that foul odour was emanating from the petitioner’s poultry farm, the fourth respondent issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to shift the poultry farm on the ground that it was causing public nuisance. The said notice was issued pursuant to directions issued by the District Collector directing the fourth respondent to take appropriate action against the petitioner.
4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
5.Admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner before directing him to shift the poultry farm. The impugned proceedings issued by the fourth respondent direct the petitioner to shift the poultry farm on the ground that it is causing public nuisance and that the petitioner is running the poultry farm without obtaining a licence from the competent authority.
3/6
W.P(MD)No.35035 of 2025
6.It is not in dispute that poultry farming is an agricultural activity, and there is no specific provision under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, requiring a licence for running a poultry farm. However, whether the petitioner’s poultry farm is in fact causing public nuisance is a matter that requires reconsideration by the fourth respondent after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
7.During the pendency of the writ petition, the Health Inspector, invoking the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, also called upon the petitioner to shift the poultry farm. However, the said order was likewise passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, the said order also cannot be given effect to unless and until the petitioner is afforded such opportunity.
8.In view of the above, the impugned proceedings issued by the fourth respondent are liable to be set aside solely on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.
4/6
W.P(MD)No.35035 of 2025
hereby quashed, while preserving liberty to the competent authority to take such action against the petitioner as may be permissible in law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. All contentions, including the question of the authority’s jurisdiction to initiate such action, are left open. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.04.2026
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes skn To
5/6
W.P(MD)No.35035 of 2025
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR , J.
skn
Writ Petition(MD)No.35035 of 2025 and
W.M.P(MD)No.27715 of 2025
07.04.2026
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the poultry farm causes public nuisance requiring shifting.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
R.Petchimuthu
The District Collector, Tenkasi District
The Assistant Director (Panchayat), Tenkasi
The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Keelapaavur Panchayat Union, Tenkasi District
The Executive Officer / President, Panchayat Union, Mellappavur, Tenkasi District
Hemant Chandangoudar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court