Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Vincentraja.I Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

Home
Madras HC
2026
Vincentraja.I Vs the District CollectorVincentraja.I v. the District Collector

Disposed¶41

Vincentraja.I v. the District Collector

Madras HC6 Apr 2026WP(MD)/598/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P(MD) No.598 of 2022, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, decided 06.04.2026 (G.R.Swaminathan & R.Poornima, JJ.). Petitioner L.Vincentraja sought mandamus against respondents 1-6 to act against respondent 7 (Arul Prakash) for illegal construction contrary to Building Plan Approval Na.Ka.No. 4317/2018/CiMa.2 dated 24.01.2019 under the Town and Country Planning Act. Court noted earlier petition W.P.(MD)No.4252 of 2022 (order dated 10.03.2022) by same petitioner alleging encroachment on a public pathway, dismissed with strong remarks; held petitioner does not appear to be a neighbour and his rights not infringed; left action, if any, to the concerned authority. Petition disposed of, no costs, miscellaneous petitions closed. Keywords: locus standi of writ petitioner; not a neighbour; mandamus; illegal construction; building plan approval deviation; Town and Country Planning Act; Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitioner does not appear to be a neighbour, and the Court questioned whether the petitioner's rights had been infringed in any manner; on that basis the petitioner lacks the standing indicated for pressing this mandamus petition. ¶40

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 1 to 6 should be directed (by way of a Writ of Mandamus) to take action against the 7th respondent for illegal construction deviating from the Building Plan Approval in Na.Ka.No. 4317/2018/CiMa.2 dated 24.01.2019 under the Town and Country Planning Act. +1 more

Court's answer

If the 7th respondent has committed some illegality, it is for the authority concerned to look into the same and take appropriate action; with that observation the writ petition is disposed of.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petitioner does not appear to be a neighbour, and the Court questioned whether the petitioner's rights had been infringed in any manner; on that basis the petitioner lacks the standing indicated for pressing this mandamus petition.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) disposed of a writ petition by L.Vincentraja praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 6 to take action against the 7th respondent (Arul Prakash) for illegal construction deviating from Building Plan Approval Na.Ka.No. 4317/2018/CiMa.2 dated 24.01.2019 under the Town and Country Planning Act. Drawing on the earlier order dated 10.03.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.4252 of 2022 — where the same petitioner's allegation of encroachment by the 7th respondent on a public pathway was dismissed with strong remarks — the Bench observed that the writ petitioner does not appear to be a neighbour and his rights were not shown to have been infringed; if the 7th respondent has committed an illegality, it is for the authority concerned to look into it and take appropriate action. Writ petition disposed of with that observation; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. Coram: G.R.Swaminathan and R.Poornima, JJ.; order made by G.R.Swaminathan, J.

A

W.P(MD) No.598 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Date : 06.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

W.P(MD) No.598 of 2022 & W.M.P.(MD)Nos.478, 479 & 480 of 2022

L.Vincentraja

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Assistant Director, Town and Country Planning, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

4.The Commissioner, Block Development Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

1/6

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

W.P(MD) No.598 of 2022

5.The Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

6.The Fire Officer, Fire Station, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

7.Arul Prakash

8.The Chairman,

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., 144 Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. (R8 is impleaded vide order dated 12.01.2022 by SVNJ & GJJ)

9.K.Subramanian

(R9 is impleaded vide order dated 16.11.2022 in W.M.P.(MD)No.4449 of 2022 in W.P.(MD)No.598 of 2022 by RMDJ & JSNPJ) ... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 6 to take action against the 7th respondent for illegal construction as against the Building Plan Approval in Na.Ka.No. 4317/2018/CiMa.2 dated 24.01.2019 as per provision in Town and Country Planning Act.

2/6

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

W.P(MD) No.598 of 2022

For Petitioner : Mrs.J.Roshini for Mr.G.Prabhurajadurai For Respondents : Mr.G.V.Vaiam Santhosh Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3 & R6 : Mr.Deenadhayalan for R5 & R8 : Mr.N.Dilipkumar for R7

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

Heard both sides.

2.The writ petitioner alleges that the 7^th respondent has put up an illegal construction.

3.The learned counsel for the 7^th respondent draws our attention to the order dated 10.03.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.4252 of 2022.

4.The petitioner herein had alleged that the 7^th respondent herein

had committed encroachment on a public pathway. The said writ petition

3/6

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

W.P(MD) No.598 of 2022

was dismissed with strong remarks against the petitioner by this Bench.

We wanted to know if the petitioner's rights have been infringed in any manner. The writ petitioner does not appear to be a neighbor. Therefore, if the 7^th respondent has committed some illegality, it is for the authority concerned to look into the same and take appropriate action.

With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

(G.R.S., J.) (R.P., J.) 06.04.2026

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No rmi

To

1.The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Assistant Director, Town and Country Planning, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

4/6

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

W.P(MD) No.598 of 2022

3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

4.The Fire Officer, Fire Station, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

5/6

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

W.P(MD) No.598 of 2022

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J.

rmi

W.P(MD) No.598 of 2022

06.04.2026

6/6

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

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether respondents 1 to 6 should be directed (by way of a Writ of Mandamus) to take action against the 7th respondent for illegal construction deviating from the Building Plan Approval in Na.Ka.No. 4317/2018/CiMa.2 dated 24.01.2019 under the Town and Country Planning Act.¶24
The court held
If the 7th respondent has committed some illegality, it is for the authority concerned to look into the same and take appropriate action; with that observation the writ petition is disposed of.ratio¶40
2.
Whether the petitioner, who does not appear to be a neighbour and whose rights are not shown to have been infringed, can maintain a writ petition seeking action against the 7th respondent's alleged illegal construction.¶40
The court held
The writ petitioner does not appear to be a neighbour, and the Court questioned whether the petitioner's rights had been infringed in any manner; on that basis the petitioner lacks the standing indicated for pressing this mandamus petition.ratio¶40

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

W.P.(MD)No.4252 of 2022Relied on¶33

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶24
Town and Country Planning ActTown and Country Planning Act¶24

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Learned counsel for the 7th respondent drew the Court's attention to the order dated 10.03.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.4252 of 2022, an earlier writ petition in which the same petitioner had alleged that the 7th respondent committed encroachment on a public pathway.¶33
Prior proceeding
The earlier writ petition W.P.(MD)No.4252 of 2022 was dismissed with strong remarks against the petitioner by this Bench.¶39
Prior proceeding
R8 (The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.) was impleaded vide order dated 12.01.2022.¶21
Prior proceeding
R9 (K.Subramanian) was impleaded vide order dated 16.11.2022 in W.M.P.(MD)No.4449 of 2022 in W.P.(MD)No.598 of 2022.¶23

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
L.Vincentraja¶7
Mrs.J.Roshini, Mr.G.Prabhurajadurai
respondent
The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District¶10
Mr.G.V.Vaiam Santhosh
respondent
The Assistant Director, Town and Country Planning, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District¶11
Mr.G.V.Vaiam Santhosh
respondent
The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District¶12
Mr.G.V.Vaiam Santhosh
respondent
The Commissioner, Block Development Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District¶13
respondent
The Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District¶17
Mr.Deenadhayalan
respondent
The Fire Officer, Fire Station, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District¶18
Mr.G.V.Vaiam Santhosh
respondent
Arul Prakash¶19
Mr.N.Dilipkumar
respondent
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.¶21
Mr.Deenadhayalan
respondent
K.Subramanian¶22

Coram

AI extract

G.R.SWAMINATHANauthor¶30
R.POORNIMAmember¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 6 Apr 2026 · April
Registered: 11 Jan 2022
Case no.: WP(MD)/598/2022
CNR: HCMD010037022022
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: G.r.swaminathan R. Poornima
Disposal: DISPOSED OF
Case type: W.P(MD)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from G.r.swaminathan R. Poornima

Mydeen Pathu(Died) Vs Shakila Banu
2 Apr 2026
Ponnuvel Vs Saravanan I.A.S
2 Apr 2026
Mehala W/O.Shanmuganathan Vs Ramachandran
2 Apr 2026
Nalina Sekaran Vs The Bar Council of India
6 Apr 2026
T.Babu Vs The District Collector / Monitoring Committee
6 Apr 2026
Rayappan Kumar. Ar Vs The Registrar
6 Apr 2026

Cite this judgement

Vincentraja.I v. the District Collector, WP(MD)/598/2022 (MAD), decided on 6 April 2026.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited1

W.P.(MD)No.4252 of 2022Relied on¶33

Open Authorities

Statutes2

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226
Town and Country Planning ActTown and Country Planning Act

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Learned counsel for the 7th respondent drew the Court's attention to the order dated 10.03.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.4252 of 2022, an earlier writ petition in which the same petitioner had alleged that the 7th respondent committed encroachment on a public pathway.
The earlier writ petition W.P.(MD)No.4252 of 2022 was dismissed with strong remarks against the petitioner by this Bench.

View full history

Bench / Coram

G.R.SWAMINATHAN and R.POORNIMA

Parties & counsel