High Court · 2025

W.P.(MD) No.36318 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 18.12.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRANandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNANW.P.(MD) No.36318 of 2025andW.M.P.(MD) No.28897 of 2025Kidathirukkai M.MuniasamyS/o.MuthusamyPresident Tamilnadu Legal Safety Movement (Trust)No.13/29, East Car StreetMudhukulathurRamanathapuram District ... Petitioner-vs-1.The Additional Chief Secretary / Secretary Public Works Department (Water Resources) Secretariat, Chennai-600 0092.The Chief Engineer (Irrigation) Public Water Department Tallakulam, Madurai____________Page 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.36318 of 20253.The District Collector District Collector Office Ramanathapuram Ramanathapuram District... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.28911/Q-1/2018-19 dated 12.10.2023 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to take appropriate action to release the Vaigai water to the three Taluks namely Muthukulathur Taluk, Kamuthy Taluk, Kadaladi Taluk, in Ramanathapuram District.For Petitioner:Mr.M.MuniasamyParty-in-PersonFor Respondents:Mr.P.ThilakkumarGovernment PleaderO R D E R[Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.]Mr.P.Thilakkumar, learned Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents.____________Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.36318 of 20252. The petitioner herein claiming himself as a person interested in public welfare and the President of Tamil Nadu Legal Safety Movement Trust is before this Court canvassing a point that the erstwhile composite Madurai District consists of a portion of the present Ramanathapuram District was also a beneficiary of the Vaigai River water and after bifurcation, the farmers of Mudukulathur Taluk, Kamuthi Taluk and Kadaladi Taluk, which form part of the present Ramanathapuram District, have not been provided with the regular supply of Vaigai River water.3. The petitioner appearing in person submitted that earlier when the representation was given to the Government to consider the farmers of the above mentioned three Taluks as Ayacutdhars of Vaigai River, the same was not considered by the authorities concerned and therefore, a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.23838 of 2018 was filed before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 07.12.2021, disposed of the said writ petition directing the authorities concerned to consider the representation of the petitioner in the said writ petition and pass orders on merits and and in accordance with law. According to the petitioner, though the above said ____________Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.36318 of 2025direction was issued as early as on 07.12.2021, the Government has not taken proper decision thereafter. However, when the erstwhile beneficiaries of the Vaigai River water in Ramanathapuram District made repeated requests, by the impugned order dated on 12.10.2023, the first respondent has rejected the said request. Challenging the said rejection order, the present writ petition has been filed.4. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the earlier writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.23838 of 2018 was filed by one M.Prabhu seeking to consider his representation dated 19.09.2018 and the said writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 07.12.2021. The subsequent representation with the similar request was made by the present petitioner and on the said representation, taking into consideration the direction given this Court in the above said writ petition, the impugned order has been passed by the first respondent, wherein it has been clearly stated that the farmers of the above mentioned three Taluks are not left without any irrigational facility and in fact, they are not provided water from Parthibanur Dam, which collects excess water from the Vaigai River. He would further submit that the said Prabhu, who filed the ____________Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.36318 of 2025earlier writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.23838 of 2018, also filed another writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.27816 of 2023 and the same was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.03.2025 in view of the averments contained in the counter filed by the second respondent herein, which are extracted hereunder:“Interest Litigation itself is contested herein. The averment of the Writ Petitioner with respect to Para 4 to 6 is misleading. It is clarified that all the tanks in the three taluks as averred by the Writ Petitioner cannot be included in the Vaigai Ayacut. Those tanks which fall under the Original Old Ayacut alone are entitled. In the present case about 31 tanks of Mudukulathoor Taluk which fall under the Vaigai basin alone are entitled for the water from Vaigai river on regular basis. All the other tanks can only be supplemented with the surplus flood water as explained supra. Moreover in Vaigai System technically with respect to the Koothankal Channel (a telescopic channel which serves 31 tanks of the Mudukulathur Taluk) starting with 540 cusec of carrying capacity, ends with 50 cusecs in the last tank and there is no scope for further command area beyond this tail end of Koothankal Channel. Thus all the possibilities and probability are thoroughly examined even on technical aspects and there is no scope to ____________Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.36318 of 2025supply water beyond this point as there is huge scarcity even in the last 10 tanks therein as well.''5. While so, the learned counsel, who appeared for the petitioner in the above said W.P.(MD) Nos.23838 of 2018 and 27816 of 2023, has filed the present writ petition as a party-in-person by projecting himself as the President of Tamil Nadu Legal Safety Movement (Trust). It is to be noted that under the guise of Public Interest Litigation, a vexatious litigation has been filed, despite passing of a speaking order by the authority concerned with a clear explanation and justification for not including the above mentioned three Taluks as Ayacutdhars of Vaigai River water directly. Nevertheless, their irrigation right is well protected by providing water through Parthibanur Dam. This Court, on perusing the records, finds that the petitioner appearing in person is also a practicing Advocate. Unfortunately, he has not followed the judicial discipline by not disclosing the earlier writ petitions filed, wherein he appeared as a counsel for the petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition and inclined to dismiss this writ petition with costs.____________Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.36318 of 20256. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) payable by the petitioner to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [G.J., J.] [K.K.R.K., J.] 18.12.2025NCC :Yes / NoIndex :Yes / NoInternet:Yes / NoNote to Office:Mark a copy of this Order to the Officer In-charge, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. krkTo:1.The Additional Chief Secretary / Secretary, Public Works Department (Water Resources), Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.____________Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.36318 of 20252.The Chief Engineer (Irrigation), Public Water Department, Tallakulam, Madurai.3.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.____________Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.36318 of 2025DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.ANDK.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.krkW.P.(MD) No.36318 of 2025andW.M.P.(MD) No.28897 of 202518.12.2025____________Page 9 of 9