Disposed¶30

K.M.Udayappan v. the District Collector

Madras HC9 Apr 2026WP(MD)/8687/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P(MD)No.8687 of 2019, K.M.Udayappan v. The District Collector, Pudukkottai District & others; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Coram: G.R. Swaminathan and B. Pugalandhi, JJ.; decided 09.04.2026. Keywords: writ of mandamus; Article 226; illicit sand mining; Posampatti village; Pudukkottai; representations dated 26.03.2018 and 18.03.2019; penalty Rs.3,21,042/-; Revenue Divisional Officer; appeal dismissed; nothing survives; writ petition disposed of; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Since action was taken on the petitioner's representation (enquiry conducted, penalty imposed on respondents 3 and 4, and their appeal dismissed), nothing survives for further adjudication in this writ petition. ¶29

K.M.Udayappan Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.8687 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.04.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.8687 of 2019

K.M.Udayappan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

¶11

2.The Sub Collector Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

3.Pandiyan

4.Ariyal

... Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st & 2nd respondents to initiate the proceedings against the 3rd & 4th respondents based on the petitioner's representation dated 26.03.2018 & 18.03.2019.

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

W.P(MD)No.8687 of 2019

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rameshkumar

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.Ajmalkhan, Addl. Advocate General, Assisted by Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Addl. Government Pleader for R1 & R2. Mr.V.K.Vijayaragavan for R3

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard both sides.

¶23

2.The petitioner is a resident of Posampatti village. He alleges that the respondents 3 and 4 had indulged in illicit sand mining. He gave a complaint against them before the authority concerned. Since action was not taken, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶24

3.This writ petition was filed way back in April 2019. Today, ie., 09.04.2026, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that enquiry was conducted into the petitioner's complaint and action was also taken. Penalty to the tune of Rs.3,21,042/- was imposed on the respondents 3 and 4 by the

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

W.P(MD)No.8687 of 2019

¶28

jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer. The respondents 3 and 4 filed

¶29

appeal, but the appeal was also dismissed. Since action was taken on the petitioner's representation, nothing survives further adjudication in this writ petition.

¶30

4.This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶31

(G.R.S.J.,) & (B.P.J.,) 09.04.2026

¶32

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

¶33

To:-

¶34