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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the 5th respondent (Executive Officer, Kariapatti Town Panchayat) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.03.2026 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after inviting the 6th respondent, completing the exercise within eight (8) weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; No Costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the 5th respondent (Executive Officer, Kariapatti Town Panchayat) should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.03.2026 seeking legal action/removal of the beef shop run illegally by the 6th respondent, which the petitioner alleges causes sanitary issues, health hazards and public nuisance.

Court's answer

The court disposed of the writ petition directing the 5th respondent (Executive Officer, Kariapatti Town Panchayat) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.03.2026 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after inviting the 6th respondent.

Ratio / Principle

The exercise directed to the 5th respondent shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; no costs were awarded.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Disposal of mandamus writ petition (Article 226 of the Constitution of India) — WP(MD)No.8195 of 2026, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, decided 01.04.2026 by Hemant Chandangoudar, J. Petitioner Arumugam sought a Writ of Mandamus directing the Executive Officer, Kariapatti Town Panchayat (5th respondent) to consider his representation dated 02.03.2026 and take legal action to remove a beef shop described in the prayer as being run illegally by Murugan (6th respondent) at the petitioner's locality in Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District, alleged to cause sanitary issues, health hazards and public nuisance; the grievance was that the representation had not been considered. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent, on instructions, undertook that the representation would be considered in accordance with law within a time frame to be stipulated by the Court; the Court took the submission on record and disposed of the writ petition, directing the 5th respondent to consider the representation dated 02.03.2026 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after inviting the 6th respondent, the entire exercise to be completed within eight (8) weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; No Costs. Other respondents: District Collector, Tahsildar and Revenue Tahsildar (Kariapatti/Virudhunagar) and Assistant Director, Kariapatti Town Panchayat. Counsel: I.Suthakaran (petitioner); P.Subbaraj, Special Government Pleader (R1–R4); A.Oliraja, Government Advocate (R5).

WP (MD). No.8195 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated : 01.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

WP(MD)No.8195 of 2026

Arumugam .. Petitioner

Vs. - 1. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District. 2. The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District. 3. The Revenue Tahsildar, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District. 4. Assistant Director, Kariapatti Town Panchayat, Madurai Region, Madurai. 5. The Executive Officer, Kariapatti Town Panchayat, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District. 6. Murugan Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to 1/5

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

WP (MD). No.8195 of 2026

issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 5th respondent to consider the petitioner's

representation dated 02.03.2026 and to take legal actions to remove the Beef Shop, which is being run illegally by the 6th respondent at the petitioner's locality and is causing sanitary issues, health hazards and public nuisance within a time frame fixed by this Court in this writ petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Suthakaran

For R1 to R4 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader For R5 : Mr.A.Oliraja Government Advocate

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for a direction to the 5^th respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.03.2026. In the said representation, the petitioner has called upon the 5^th respondent to take action against the 6^th respondent who is selling beef illegally, thereby causing health hazards and nuisance to the public. The petitioner's grievance is that the said

2/5

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

WP (MD). No.8195 of 2026

representation has not been considered.

The learned counsel representing the 5^th

respondent on receiving instructions submitted that the representation will be considered in accordance with law within the time frame to be stipulated by this Court.

The said submission is taken on record. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 5^th respondent to consider the representation dated 02.03.2026 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after inviting the 6^th respondent. The said exercises shall be completed within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs.

01.04.2026

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

PJL

3/5

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

WP (MD). No.8195 of 2026

TO

The District Collector, Virudhunagar District.

The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Kariapatti,

Virudhunagar District.

The Revenue Tahsildar, Kariapatti,

Virudhunagar District.

Assistant Director,

Kariapatti Town Panchayat, Madurai Region, Madurai.

The Executive Officer,

Kariapatti Town Panchayat,

Kariapatti,

Virudhunagar District.

4/5

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

WP (MD). No.8195 of 2026

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR,J

PJL

ORDER IN WP(MD) No.8195 of 2026

Date : 01.04.2026

5/5

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