Dismissed¶42

Jeyaprakash v. The District Collector

Madras HC18 Jun 2026WP(MD)/5578/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dog breeding centre / dog farm closure sought via PIL by neighbour; Tamil Nadu Animal Welfare Board licence for five breeds already granted; W.P.(MD) No.4160 of 2026 antecedent and Single Judge order dated 17.02.2026; proceedings Na.Ka.No.506/2025/A2 dated 14.01.2026; Kanniyakumari District; Kaliyakavilai Town Panchayat; Article 226 mandamus; petitioner cannot as of right seek closure once licence granted; writ petition dismissed, no costs; Madurai Bench, Madras High Court; N.Sathish Kumar and P.B.Balaji; decided 18.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

Since the Tamil Nadu Animal Welfare Board has considered the application and granted the requisite licence, the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, seek closure of the breeding centre by way of a Public Interest Litigation. ¶37

Jeyaprakash Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 1 to 3 should be directed (by mandamus) to remove the dog farm/breeding centre run by the fourth respondent and take necessary action against him within a time frame fixed by the Court, in view of the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.506/2025/A2 dated 14.01.2026. +1 more

¶20

Ratio / Principle

¶37

Key takeaways

The fourth respondent is presently running the breeding centre in accordance with the licence issued by the Tamil Nadu Animal Welfare Board.ratio¶37
The Court was not inclined to grant the relief sought by the petitioner; accordingly the Writ Petition stands dismissed, with no order as to costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Article 226) by Jeyaprakash, a neighbour, before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 (District Collector, Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Executive Officer, Kaliyakavilai Town Panchayat) to remove the dog farm allegedly run illegally by the fourth respondent (Thangarajan) and to act against him, citing absence of a Tamil Nadu Animal Welfare Board licence, inadequate premises, non-compliance with breeding rules and lack of veterinary care/vaccination, and relying on proceedings Na.Ka.No.506/2025/A2 dated 14.01.2026 of the third respondent; representations made between 17.09.2025 and 21.01.2026 went unactioned. The fourth respondent had earlier filed W.P.(MD) No.4160 of 2026, and by order dated 17.02.2026 a Single Judge directed the authorities to consider his licence application subject to satisfaction of prescribed criteria; the Board thereafter granted a licence to maintain five breeds of dogs. Holding: since the requisite licence has been granted and the centre is run in accordance with it, the petitioner cannot as of right seek closure of the breeding centre through a Public Interest Litigation. Writ petition dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

W.P(MD)No.5578 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.06.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.5578 of 2026 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)No.4652 of 2026

Jeyaprakash

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate Building, Kanniyakumari District.

¶12

2.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, O/o.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Nagercoil Zone, Kanniyakumari District

¶13

3.The Executive Officer, O/o.The Executive Officer, Kaliyakavilai Town Panchayat, Kanniyakumari District.

4.Thangarajan

... Respondents

1/6

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

¶18

PRAYER :

¶19

W.P(MD)No.5578 of 2026

¶20

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to remove the illegal dog farm run by the fourth respondent and to take necessary action against the fourth respondent within the time frame as fixed by this Court, in view of the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.506/2025/A2 by the third respondent dated 14.01.2026.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Aboobacker Siddik

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Parthiban (R1 to R3) Counsel for State

¶23

: Mr.R.J.Daniel Robinson

¶24

ORDER

¶25

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

¶26

The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the alleged illegal dog farm being run by the fourth respondent and to take appropriate action against the fourth respondent within the time frame fixed by this Court, in the light of the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.506/2025/A2 dated 14.01.2026 issued by the third respondent.

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P(MD)No.5578 of 2026

¶30

2.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner contended that the fourth respondent is running a dog breeding centre without obtaining a licence from the Tamil Nadu Animal Welfare Board. It is further submitted that the premises are inadequate in extent, the prescribed breeding rules have not been complied with, and proper medical treatment, vaccination and other welfare measures are not being provided to the dogs. In this regard, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner submitted several representations to the authorities concerned between 17.09.2025 and 21.01.2026. Since no action was taken on the said representations, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶31

3.The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that the fourth respondent had earlier filed W.P.(MD) No.4160 of 2026 challenging the order passed by the first respondent therein and seeking a direction to grant a licence/permit to keep dogs/pets in his premises. By order dated 17.02.2026, the learned Single Judge of this Court directed the authorities concerned to consider the application submitted by

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P(MD)No.5578 of 2026

¶35

the fourth respondent for issuance of a licence to run a dog breeding unit, provided that he satisfied all the criteria prescribed for grant of such licence.

¶36

4.Pursuant to the said order, the Tamil Nadu Animal Welfare Board considered the application of the fourth respondent and granted a licence permitting him to maintain five breeds of dogs.

¶37

5.Since the Tamil Nadu Animal Welfare Board has considered the application and granted the requisite licence, we are of the view that the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, seek closure of the breeding centre by way of a Public Interest Litigation. Further, the petitioner is admittedly a neighbour of the fourth respondent. According to the fourth respondent, the present Writ Petition has been filed owing to personal animosity arising out of a civil dispute between the parties. Be that as it may, the fourth respondent is presently running the breeding centre in accordance with the licence issued by the Tamil Nadu Animal Welfare Board.

¶38

6.In such view of the matter, we are not inclined to grant the

¶39

4/6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P(MD)No.5578 of 2026

¶42

relief sought for by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶43

[N.S.K.,J.] [P.B.B.,J.] 18.06.2026

¶44

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No ps

¶45

¶46

1.The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate Building, Kanniyakumari District.

¶47

2.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, O/o.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Nagercoil Zone, Kanniyakumari District

¶48

3.The Executive Officer, O/o.The Executive Officer, Kaliyakavilai Town Panchayat, Kanniyakumari District.

¶49