Duraipandi v. The District Collector, Sivagangai
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 09.06.2026CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMARANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMANW.P.(MD)No.15390 of 2026andW.M.P.(MD)Nos.11538 & 11539 of 2026 Duraipandi... PetitionerVs.
The District Collector, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai.
The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, No.13, Master Plan Campus, Sivagangai.
The Executive Engineer, Department of Water Resources, Sarugani River Basin Division, Sivagangai.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Senthamil Nagar, Sivagangai.
The Tahsildar, Thirupuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai.
R.Subramaniyan ...Respondents1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in MuMu.B2-15410/2025 dated 27.07.2025 and the consequential auction notification issued by the third respondent in ViVeNo.6/26/Se/Ma/Tho/A/Sivagangai/dated 12.01.2026 along with the impugned cutting order issued by the third respondent in proceedings No.Tha3/990.2026/ dated 12.03.2026 in favour of the sixth respondent and quash the same insofar as the reduced determination of the extent of area wherein Karuvelam trees grown as 87.53 hectares instead of the actual total extent of 274.85 hectares in the water body namely Konthagai Kanmai situates in Konthagai Revenue Village of Thirupuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District by fixing the time limit that may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.C.M.ArumugamFor Respondents: Mr.C.Jeganathan (R1 to R5) Counsel for State Mr.A.K.Manikkam (R6)ORDER (Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the auction notice issued by the District Collector for the sale of Prosopis juliflora, an invasive species.2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Operative part
2. The contention raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the invasive species are grown in the entire extent of water body, however, the respondents have reduced the extent of the affected area only for the purpose of helping some people. 3. We are of the view that the present Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable. It is also relevant to note that a Special Bench has been constituted to monitor the removal of Prosopis juliflora throughout the State, and series of directions have already been issued by the Division Bench in W.P. No.15120 of 2025. Further, two retired Judges of this Court have been appointed to monitor the implementation of the removal process. 4. In such view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. [N.S.K., J.] & [M.J.R., J.] 09.06.2026 Index :Yes/NoInternet: Yesta3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To1.The District Collector, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai. 2. The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, No.13, Master Plan Campus, Sivagangai. 3. The Executive Engineer, Department of Water Resources, Sarugani River Basin Division, Sivagangai. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Senthamil Nagar, Sivagangai. 5. The Tahsildar, Thirupuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai.4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.ANDM.JOTHIRAMAN, J.taW.P.(MD)No.15390 of 202609.06.20265/5
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed
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.