Pandi Vs The District Collector

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in Letter. No.VaPa/MuVaB2/Ko1999 (Bridge)/2025 dated 03.11.2025 issued by the 3rd Respondent, quash the same as illegal and further forbear the 3^rd Respondent from issuing any further permission for construction of the RCC Bridge across the Maranadu Channel, Thoothai Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District, enabling the illegal river sand miners to loot the river sand.

¶32

2/8

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD)Nos.5466 & 5626 of 2026

¶35

For Petitioner :Mr.Dr.R.Alagumani For Respondents :Mr.Ajmal Khan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader for R1 to R5 : Mr.K.Gnanasekaran Government Advocate for R6 : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Mahaboob Fazil for R7 : Mr.B.Anandan for R8 to R14

¶36

In W.P.(MD)No.5626 of 2026

¶37

Ganesan ... Petitioner

¶38

Vs.

¶39

1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Sivagangai District.

¶40

2.The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Madurai Division, Madurai.

¶41

3.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶42

4.The Tahsildar, Thiruppuvanam Taluk Office, Sivagangai District.

¶43

3/8

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.(MD)Nos.5466 & 5626 of 2026

¶46

5.The Inspector of Police, Thiruppuvanam Police Station, Sivagangai District.

¶47

6.N.Ganapathy

¶48

... Respondents

¶49

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1^st Respondent / District Collector to prevent any construction of any bridge over the Maranadu Kanmoi Kavai comprised in S.No.152, Thoothai Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District by considering the representation given by the petitioner dated 04.02.2026 within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶50

For Petitioner	:Mr.V.Malaiyendran
For Respondents	:Mr.Ajmal Khan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4
	: Mr.K.Gnanasekaran Government Advocate for R5
	: Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy for Mr.M.Mahaboob Fazil for R6

¶51

4/8

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.(MD)Nos.5466 & 5626 of 2026

¶54

COMMON ORDER

¶55

Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and the learned Senior Counsel for the 7^th respondent and the learned counsl for the impleaded respondents.

¶56

2.The writ petitioner is a resident of Periya Avarangadu, Manamadurai. He challenges the impugned order dated 3.11.2025 issued by the third respondent herein permitting the 7^th respondent to put up 32 feet bridge across the petition mentioned channel.

¶57

We clearly indicated to the official respondents as well as the 7^th respondent that the width of the bridge will have to be drastically reduced. Taking a cue from what fell from this Court, the learned senior counsel appearing for the 7^th respondent submitted that the width of the bridge can be reduced from 32 feet to 10 feet. When the petitioner expressed his apprehension that the proposed bridge may be utilized for illegally transporting river sand, the learned senior counsel appearing for the 7^th respondent submitted that CCTV cameras can be installed at his cost and then it will be functional 24 X 7. The 7^th respondent is ready to provide connectivity for monitoring purpose not only to the revenue and the Police Department but also to the petitioner himself.

¶58

5/8

¶59

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

¶60

W.P.(MD)Nos.5466 & 5626 of 2026

¶61

It is further undertaken that the storage memory will be not less than 30 days.

¶62

An undertaking affidavit has also been filed to this effect. It reads as follows:-

¶63

“ 3. That I am residing in the above mentioned address. I submit that the lands in S.No.137/4 and 137/5 in Thoothai Village, Thirupuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District are my agricultural lands and adjoining my lands are agricultural lands of 36 farmers who are engaged in coconut and other agricultural lands would constitute to an extent of 60 acres and only access to my said lands is through the Maranadu Supply channel and therefore I made an application to permit me to put up a culvert across the said Maranadu supply channel at my own cost to access my patta lands on 10.07.2025 and pursuant to the same an Inspection were carried out and the second respondent through his proceedings in Letter No.VaPa/MUVAA2/Ko1999(palam)/2025 dated 03.11.2025 had granted permission to put up the bridge across the said water channel.

¶64

That it is submitted that the prposed bridge is to be constructed only to access our agricultural lands and it is further undertaken that the lands would not be converted a a Rea Estate / Commercial Plots and we would not engage in any kind of mining activity.

¶65

5.That though the permission for the bridge is granted for a width of 32 feet and Length of 45 feet we undertake to reduce the same to 10 feet width so as to accommodate the Entry to Tractor along with trailer.

¶66

That in so far as the bund is conerned, it it submitted that the basement and laying of TMT roads alone were done in the presence of concerned officials of WRD and the further construction was kept in abeyance on our own during the pendency of the writ petition and the Bridge would be construced only in 10 feet Width as per the undertaking given before this Court and the bunds would be restored to its original position by providing concrete reinforcement on both the sides of the bridge after the proposed construction as per the approved plan.”

¶67

6/8

¶68

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

¶69

W.P.(MD)Nos.5466 & 5626 of 2026

¶70

In the process of putting up the RCC bridge, the channel bund appears to have been demolished. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, it constitutes an offence. But we are of the view that there was no malicious intent in damaging the bund. The 7^th respondent is directed to forthwith restore the same to its original condition at his cost. The restoration work shall be supervised personally by the 4^th respondent herein.

¶71