High Court · 2025

W.P.(MD)No.28263 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 13.11.2025CORAM: THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH ANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPANW.P.(MD)No.28263 of 2025andW.M.P(MD)No.21967 of 2025K.M.Mariappan... PetitionerVs.1.The Chief Engineer / Director, Water Resource Department (WRD)/ Public Work Department (PWD), Chepakkam, Chennai - 600 005.2.The Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department (WRD), Madurai Region, Madurai - 625 002.3.The Superintending Engineer, Water Resource Department (WRD), Thamirabharani River Basin, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.4.The District Collector, Collectorate Campus, Tirunelveli District.1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.28263 of 20255.The Assistant Engineer, Water Resource Department (WRD), Kannadian Channel Section, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.6.The Tahsildar, Ambasamuthiram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.7.The Executive Officer, Special Grade Town Panchayat, Kallidaikurichi, Tirunelveli District.... RespondentsPRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents No.2 to 6 from demolishing the existing regular pathway PWD Bridge situated on the Kannadian Channel, Thimmaraja Samudram Village, Kallidaikurichi Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District until construction of new pathway Bridge on the very same place for the usage of general public without consider the reasonable objection made by the local residence of the petitioner village by considering the representation dated 03.10.2025 within the time stipulated by this Court.For Petitioner : Mr.I.PinaygashFor Respondents: Mr.P.Thilakkumar Government Pleader2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.28263 of 2025ORDER (Order of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)Read this order in continuation of and in conjunction with orders dated 10.10.2025, 17.10.2025 and 07.11.2025, which are extracted below:'10.10.2025:Prayer in this writ petition is for a mandamus forbearing the respondents 2 to 6 from demolishing the existing PWD bridge, that is used as a pathway and that is situated on the Kannadian Channel, Thimmaraja Samudram Village, Kallidaikurichi Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District (old bridge). 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition in public interest. He is a resident of that village. The old pathway is stated to have been erected more than 80 years ago and carries the villagers to various destinations on the other side of the bridge. 3. The petitioner submits that there are agriculturists, labourers and various other persons, who require to use that pathway to reach destinations for their avocations. There are Schools and Colleges, Courts, Government Hospital, Railway Station and Veterinary Hospital at Kallaidaikurichi and Ambasamudhram, which can be accessed by the villagers only by crossing the Kannadian Channel. This is also required for the villagers to attend the temple festivals.4. While so, a new bridge was constructed in 2009 at a higher level facilitating the movement 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.28263 of 2025of vehicular traffic and this arrangement was ideal for the villagers, as the new bridge was used to carry vehicles, and the old bridge was used as a pedestrian pathway. While so, the petitioner is aggrieved by the attempts of the respondents to demolish the old pathway. 5. Mr.P.Thilakkumar, learned Government Pleader, who accepts notice for all the respondents, has written instructions from the Assistant Engineer of the Kannadian Channel Section, Cheranmahadevi. The instructions, dated 10.10.2025 are extracted below:-“jpUney;Ntyp khtl;lk;> mk;ghrKj;jpuk; tl;lk;> fy;ypilf;Fwpr;rp Ng&uhl;rp> jpk;kuh[rKj;jpuk; fpuhkj;jpYs;s fd;dbad; fhy;thapy; KO nfhs;sT (3680 fdmb) jz;zPu; nfhz;L nry;tjw;F ,g;gFjpapy; cs;s gioa ghyk; ,ilA+whf cs;sJ. NkYk; ,jid ,bj;J mjd; mUfpy; cs;s Gjpa ghyj;jpid gad;ghl;bw;F nfhz;L te;jhy; kl;LNk KO nfhs;ssT jz;zPiu vLj;J tu KbAk; mjd; %yk; nts;sf;fhyq;fspy; nts;s ePu; fhy;thapy; jz;zPiu nfhz;L nry;y ,aYk;.fd;dbad; fhy;thapy; 0kP Kjy; 6500kP tiu ePupd; cau; kl;l msT (Full Supply Depth 2.50m) fd;dbad; fhy;thapy; nkhj;j ePsk; 30.0Km mjpy; 6500m-y; fd;dbad; fhy;thapy; ,Ue;J Off take vLj;J nts;s ePu; fhy;tha; 0 Paint Muk;gpf;fpwJ. ,e;j nts;s ePu; fhy;thapy; kio fhyq;fspy; jz;zPu; vLg;gjw;fhf fd;dbad; fhy;thapy (Full Supply Depth + Free Board - 2.5+ 0.75-325kP) Mf cau;j;jg;gl;lJ. ,jdhy; jpk;kuh[rKj;jpuk; fpuhkj;jpy; fd;dbad; fhy;thapd; neLif 2046kP 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.28263 of 2025ghyj;jpd; mUNf Gjpa ghyk; 2012-k; Mz;L fl;lg;gl;lJ. NkYk; gioa ghyj;jpd; cau;kl;l msT 2.0kP MFk;.KO nfhs;sT jz;zPiu nfhz;L nry;y ghyj;jpd; Full Supply Depth (2.50 + 0.75 = 3.25kP) ,Uf;f Ntz;Lk;. gioa ghyk; ,Ug;gjhy; fd;dbad; fhy;thapy; KOnfhs;sT jz;zPu; nfhz;L nry;y ,ayhj epiy cs;sJ. NkYk; ghyk; kpfTk; gOjile;j epiyapy; cs;sJ. ve;j Neuj;jpYk; cilAk; epiyapy; cs;sJ. NkYk; Gjpa ghyj;jpw;F cWjp jd;ik Ma;T 07.10.2025 md;W nghJkf;fs;> tUtha;Jiw> fhty;Jiw> ePu;tsj;Jiw Kd;dpiyapy; muR nghwpapay; fy;Y}up> jpUney;Ntyp rptpy; nghwpapay; Jiw ty;Yeu;fshy; Ma;T nra;ag;gl;L mjw;fhd jur;rhd;Wk; 09.10.2025 md;W ngwg;gl;Ls;sJ. ghyk; ey;y epiyapy; cs;sJ vd;W mwpf;if tug;ngw;Ws;sJ.Gjpa ghyj;jpid gad;ghl;bw;F nfhz;L tUtjw;F ,ilA+whf mike;j kpd;fk;gq;fisAk; 07.10.2025 md;W khw;wp elg;gl;Ls;sJ. vdNt ,e;j Gjpa ghyj;jpid gad;gLj;Jtjpy; ve;j ghjpg;Gk; ,y;iy.”6. The sum and substance of the above is to the effect that the channel is intended to be deepened and the water level increased to 2.5 meters. This would result in the old pathway being flooded and consequently in the overflowing of the water and flooding of the adjacent areas. Since this is not a viable solution and as the old pathway is now standing in the path of developmental activities, the respondents intend to demolish the same. 7. Incidentally, they would also submit that the old bridge is not in a fit condition to carry even pedestrians. Ms.N.Rajeswari, Assistant Engineer / R5, the Assistant Engineer, Water 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.28263 of 2025Resource Department (WRD), Kannadian Channel Section, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District is also present in Court and reiterates the contents of her written instructions.7. Having regard to the rival contentions made, we are of the view that this is matter where a balance should be struck. Undoubtedly, the Court would not intervene on a matter of policy. If the State wishes to engage in developmental activities that would ultimately enure to the benefit of the citizens, we will permit them to proceed as planned. The proposal and explanation in the written submissions appears to have been well thought of, and hence, we find no cause to intervene on that account. 8. However, equally compelling is the apprehension and the difficulties expressed by the petitioner on behalf of the villagers. This too cannot be given a go by. We are anxious that the safety, interests of the welfare of children, senior citizens and other pedestrians should not be compromised by their using an overbridge intended for vehicular traffic. In such circumstances, we direct the respondents to earmark a pathway with a proper barricade on one side of the new bridge to the extent of, say, minimum 2.5 feet, to enable pedestrians, including school going children, elderly and the sick to walk safely, despite the flow of vehicular traffic. 9. The ideal situation would be for a separate bridge to be built to carry pedestrian traffic and this may be considered as an option, long-term. However, the villagers must have a safe access to the other side of the Channel, despite the flow of traffic on the new bridge, for which purpose we make the above direction. Let the needful be done to implement the direction above, within a 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.28263 of 2025week, ie., by 17.10.2025.10. List on 17.10.2025.17.10.2025:Read this order in continuation of and in conjunction with previous orders. 2.Some photographs are circulated indicating a single pole erected in the middle of the bridge.3.Mr.P.Thilakkumar, learned Government Pleader states that a rope is intended to be fastened to the pole to carve out a pathway from the rest of the bridge. This idea doesn't appeal to us at all as it will cause more damage instead of being of any use. The intention was to carve out a separate pathway/walkway on the bridge in order that there may be a safe pedestrian route on the bridge itself.4.In the written instructions circulated today, the authorities have assured the court that the pathway/curb is in the process of being constructed for the safety of the pedestrians. Let this be done by 31.12.2025. In the meantime, the respondents will ensure that plastic barricades be placed carving out the pathway from end to end. The pole placed will be removed forthwith.5.To report compliance, list on 07.11.2025.07.11.2025:Read this order in continuation of and in conjunction with previous orders, dated 10.10.2025 and 17.10.2025.2.We are very pained by the judicial time we have had to spend on a matter, as simple as this, simply to provide a walkway on the bridge for the residents of the village and the neighbouring villages. 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.28263 of 20253.We are given a photograph to show that orange plastic cones have been placed along with a rope. There is nothing to prevent any passer by from disturbing these plastic cones, which would result in there being no proper pathway. Basically, we had instructed the authorities to ensure that a kerb is constructed for the safety of pedestrians. This must be done within one week or alternatively, orange plastic cones running along the length of the pathway are to be secured on the road. 4.List on 13.11.2025 under the same caption as a last opportunity to the authorities to do the needful.2.Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, learned Government Pleader, states that while efforts were being made by the parties to construct a kerb as directed, there was resistance from the public, as they are adamant that only a new footbridge should be constructed.3.In light of these circumstances, which prevent the implementaion of the via media suggestion made by this Court, we have no further option but to dismiss this Writ Petition. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.[A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,] 13.11.2025 NCC:Yes/NoIndex :Yes/Nops8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.28263 of 2025To1.The Chief Engineer / Director, Water Resource Department (WRD)/ Public Work Department (PWD), Chepakkam, Chennai - 600 005.2.The Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department (WRD), Madurai Region, Madurai - 625 002.3.The Superintending Engineer, Water Resource Department (WRD), Thamirabharani River Basin, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.4.The District Collector, Collectorate Campus, Tirunelveli District.5.The Assistant Engineer, Water Resource Department (WRD), Kannadian Channel Section, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.6.The Tahsildar, Ambasamuthiram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.7.The Executive Officer, Special Grade Town Panchayat, Kallidaikurichi, Tirunelveli District.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.28263 of 2025DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.ANDC.KUMARAPPAN, J.psW.P.(MD)No.28263 of 202513.11.202510/10