Disposed¶31

M/S. Jaizar Spintex Pvt. Ltd., v. the District Collector/

Madras HC6 Jan 2026WP(MD)/9651/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jaizar Spintex Private Ltd.; property tax 2007-2008; Malayankulam Village Panchayat; Rule 25 Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat (Assessment and Collectiion of Taxes) Rules 1999 pre-deposit of entire tax; Rs.3,12,566/-; Revision No.A8/1246/2006; distraint notice 18.08.2011; Writ of Certiorari; Article 226; direction to 2nd respondent to decide appeal on merits within eight weeks; merits not gone into; disposed of, no costs; Madurai Bench; G.R.Swaminathan; R.Kalaimathi; Tirunelveli; Sankarankoil.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent (Malayankulam Panchayat through its Executive Officer) to dispose of the petitioner's appeal on merits and in accordance with law within eight weeks; writ petition disposed of with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶31

M/S. Jaizar Spintex Pvt. Ltd., Vs the District… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 15.04.2011 passed by the 4th respondent, the further order dated 01.08.2011 passed by the 1st respondent in Revision No.A8/1246/2006, and the consequential distraint notice dated 18.08.2011 issued by the 4th respondent should be quashed as illegal by way of a Writ of Certiorari. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

The second respondent was directed to dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The Court expressly clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the matter.

¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(MD)No.9651 of 2011 (Madurai Bench, Madras High Court; G.R.Swaminathan & R.Kalaimathi, JJ.; 06.01.2026): Writ of Certiorari under Article 226 by M/s.Jaizar Spintex Private Ltd. seeking quashing of (i) the order dated 15.04.2011 passed by the 4th respondent (President, Malayankulam Village Panchayat), (ii) the further order dated 01.08.2011 passed by the 1st respondent (District Collector) in Revision No.A8/1246/2006, and (iii) the consequential distraint notice dated 18.08.2011, concerning property tax assessed on the petitioner for 2007-2008. As per Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat (Assessment and Collectiion of Taxes) Rules 1999, the entire tax of Rs.3,12,566/- had to be remitted to maintain an appeal, and it was submitted that the amount had been paid. Without examining the merits, the Bench directed the 2nd respondent (Malayankulam Panchayat through its Executive Officer) to dispose of the appeal on merits within eight weeks; the writ petition was disposed of with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition (M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011) was closed.

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)NO.9651 OF 2011

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

¶8

W.P.(MD)No.9651 of 2011 AND M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011

¶9

M/s.Jaizar Spintex Private Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, P.L.J.Lakshmanan, Kazhugumalai Road, Malayankulam, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli District. ... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The District Collector / Inspector of Panchayat, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶12

Malayankulam Panchayat, Malayankulam, Through its Executive Officer, Sankarankoil Taluk, Thirunelveli District.

¶13

The President, Malayankulam Village Panchayat, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

2 W.P.(MD)NO.9651 OF 2011

¶17

S.Kathiresan,

¶18

President, Malayankulam Village Panchayat, Kuruvikulam Village, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

¶19

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records and proceedings pertaining to the order passed by the 4^th respondent dated 15.04.2011 and the further order passed by the first respondent in Revision No.A8/1246/2006 dated 01.08.2011 and the consequential distraint notice by the fourth respondent dated 18.08.2011 and quash the same as illegal.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Chellapandian, for M/s.Eddy and Embboss.

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjad Khan, Government Advocate.

¶22

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Heard the learned Senior counsel for the writ petitioner and

¶25

the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶26

2/4

¶27

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

¶28

3 W.P.(MD)NO.9651 OF 2011

¶29

The case on hand pertains to assessment of property tax

¶30

levied on the writ petitioner for the year 2007-2008. As per Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat (Assessment and Collectiion of Taxes) Rules 1999, for maintaining an appeal against the assessment, the entire tax amount has to be remitted. For the year in question (ie) 2007-2008, the amount comes to Rs.3,12,566/-. It is submitted that this amount has already been paid.

¶31

We therefore direct the second respondent to dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter. This writ petition stands disposed off accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶32

(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (R.KALAIMATHI, J.) 6^th January 2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶33

PMU

¶34

3/4

¶35

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

¶36