Sundaram v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SALEM.2.THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,OFFICE
Case at a glance
- Bench
- G K ILANTHIRAIYAN
Outcome
Withdrawn
In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 66.RAMALINGAM7.CHINNAPAIYAN8.KARUNANITHI9.PAZHANISWAMY10.MUTHU... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records Page 1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18443 of 2025of impugned order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.1/2025/A1 and quash…
Judgment
W.P.No.18443 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 03.06.2026CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANWP.No.18443 of 2025 andWMP.Nos.20662 & 20664 of 2025 Sundaram... PetitionerVs.
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SALEM.
THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTUR, SALEM.
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ATTUR.
THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE CUM TAHSILDAR,ATTUR TALUK, SALEM DISTRICT.
INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ATTUR RURAL POLICE STATION, ATTUR.
RAMALINGAM7.CHINNAPAIYAN8.KARUNANITHI9.PAZHANISWAMY10.MUTHU... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records Page 1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18443 of 2025of impugned order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.1/2025/A1 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to grant permission and protection to Petitioner and other hereditary representatives of the Milagukaatan and Kallapoovan Vagayaras to conduct the annual temple festival scheduled from 21.05.2025 to 31.05.2025 in accordance with the prevailing customs and traditionsFor Petitioner : Mr.R.RaghulFor RespondentsFor R1 to 5 : Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)ORDERThis writ petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of impugned order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.1/2025/A1 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to grant permission and protection to Petitioner and other hereditary representatives of the Milagukaatan and Kallapoovan Vagayaras to conduct the annual temple festival scheduled from 21.05.2025 to 31.05.2025 in accordance with the prevailing customs and traditions2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks Page 2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18443 of 2025permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect.
Operative part
3. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.03.06.2026Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderlokPage 3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.18443 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.lokTo1.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SALEM.2.THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTUR, SALEM.3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ATTUR.4.THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE CUM TAHSILDAR,ATTUR TALUK, SALEM DISTRICT.5.INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ATTUR RURAL POLICE STATION, ATTUR.6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras WP .No. 18443 of 202 5 03.06.2026Page 4 of 4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.