Madras High Court
S.Selvam vs The District Collector on 26 August, 2025
Author: M. Sundar
Bench: M. Sundar
W.A.No.2610 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
W.A.No.2610 of 2025
S.Selvam .. Appellant
Vs.
1.The District Collector
Collector Office Rd, Moovendar Nagar
Villupuram District
2.The Tahsildar, Marakkanam
Villupuram District
3.The Village Administrative Officer
Kilputhapettu, Marakkanam
Villupuram District .. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order
dated 12.08.2025 passed in W.P.No.30202 of 2025.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Babu Varadharajan
For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan
Additional Government Pleader
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:11 pm )
W.A.No.2610 of 2025
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.SUNDAR, J.)
Nucleus of captioned matter is 'land comprised in survey No.120/3 in
212 Anumanthai Village, Marakkanam Taluk, Villupuram District' ('said land'
for the sake of convenience and clarity).
2.Mr.D.Babu Varadharajan, learned counsel for appellant, adverting to
photocopies of relevant part of 'A' register and FMB sketch submits that said
land is land which vests in State i.e., public land, the same having been
classified as vandi pathai (cart track).
3. Learned counsel submits that the appellant wants to place an idol
(Vinayagar idol) in said land for celebrating Vinayagar festival and immerse
the idol in a water body thereafter.
4. Appellant sent 'a representation dated 14.07.2025 to first respondent
(District Collector)' in this regard ('said representation' for the sake of
convenience and clarity). Alleging inaction, appellant sought a mandamus
vide W.P.No.30202 of 2025 and the same came to be dismissed by a Hon'ble
Single Judge in and by 'order dated 12.08.2025' ('impugned order' for the sake
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:11 pm )
of convenience and clarity) inter alia on the ground that said land is a cart
track, that a mandamus cannot be sought without a legal right and
corresponding duty on the part of the respondents. Assailing impugned order,
captioned intra-court appeal has been filed.
5. Learned counsel submits that 'guidelines for installation and worship
of Vinayagar idols and also immersion thereof' ('said guidelines' for the sake of
convenience and clarity) has been issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu
and the same has been published vide 'G.O.Ms.No.598, Public (Law & Order
B) Department, dated 09.08.2018' ('said GO' for the sake of convenience and
clarity) but said representation of appellant went unattended and mandamus
was negatived is learned counsel's further say.
6. Issue notice.
7. Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts
notice for all respondents and on instructions, submits as follows:
(a) In previous years, the installation and worship of Vinayagar idol was in
survey Nos.130/19A and 130/19B which is temple land belonging to one
Mariamman Temple and not in public land;
(b) As per the guidelines, as Villupuram is a district where there is no police
Commissionerate, the writ petitioner should have made an application to
Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO)/Sub-Collector and said guidelines
even provides for an appeal to the Collector but the appellant has sent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:11 pm )
only said representation that too to Collector; and
(c) It was pointed out that the application should be made at least one month
in advance along with 'no objection certificates' (NOCs) from local
bodies concerned/Highways or the department concerned, if it is a public
land and from the Station House Officer (SHO), Fire and Rescue
Services and a letter indicating temporary power supply from
TANGEDCO.
8. By way of reply, learned counsel for appellant submitted that said
representation can be treated as an application vide said GO.
9. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides.
10. In the light of the narrative thus far, it is clear that the scope of the
captioned intra-court appeal i.e., writ appeal is very limited and therefore, with
the consent of learned counsel on record for appellant and learned State
counsel, captioned main writ appeal was taken up.
11. After hearing learned counsel on both sides, perusing the records, the
impugned order made by Hon'ble Single Judge and more particularly, said
guidelines i.e., said GO, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the
learned Single Judge and the reasons are as follows:
i. In the impugned order, as already alluded to supra, one of the
grounds is, the petitioner seeking mandamus should be able to
demonstrate a legal right and a corresponding legal duty and there can
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:11 pm )
be no quarrel on this proposition;
ii. This Court has no hesitation in writing that the above is the correct
legal position of law and the lead case in this regard is oft quoted
celebrated Praga Tools Corporation Vs. C.A.Imanual and Others
reported in [(1969) 1 SCC 585]. In Praga Tools case, workmen of an
industry filed a writ petition in Andhra Pradesh High Court
challenging the validity of agreements which were drawn up between
management and workmen. In this factual backdrop, Hon'ble
Supreme Court made it clear that an application qua mandamus
should have a legal and specific right to enforce a performance of
duty and the condition precedent for issue of mandamus is that the
one claiming it, should have a legal right to the performance of a legal
duty against whom it is sought. It was made clear that an order of
mandamus is in form a command directed to a person or a entity
requiring him or entity to do a particular thing which appertains to his
office and in the nature of public duty;
iii. In the impugned order, Hon'ble Single Judge has adverted to an
earlier order by the another Hon'ble Single Judge being order dated
21.02.2025 in W.P.No.6134 of 2025 filed by one Santhamoorthi,
wherein a prayer to return the Vinayagar idol which was said to have
been taken away from said land and consequently, direct official
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:11 pm )
respondents to permit petitioner to place Vinayagar idol in said land
was negatived. This Court had the benefit of perusing this order
dated 21.02.2025 also and it is clear that this 21.02.2025 order also
pertains to said land;
iv. As regards said SOP vide said GO, as rightly pointed out by learned
State counsel, the appellant should have applied at least a month in
advance with NOCs, particularly, NOCs from local bodies
concerned/Highways or the department concerned and from the
jurisdictional SHO, Fire and Rescue Services (safety standards) and a
letter from TANGEDCO indicating source of temporary power
supply. In this regard, the plea to construe the said representation i.e.,
representation of appellant dated 14.07.2025 as an application vide
said GO/said guidelines, is a complete non-starter and the reasons are
follows:
(a) Said representation has been sent to Collector and not
RDO/Sub-Collector as alluded to supra and this is fatal
as granting/non-granting the permission by RDO/
Sub-Collector can be subjected to appeal and the appeal
lies before the Collector;
(b) Said representation does not have any annexures much
less annexures required under said GO/said SOP;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:11 pm )
(c) Interestingly and intriguingly, copies of said
representation have been marked to five addressees viz.,
Superintendent of Police, Tahsildar, Inspector of Police,
Municipal Office and Inspector, Tamil Nadu Fire and
Rescue Services Department but no copy has been
marked to RDO/Sub-Collector.
v. The appellant has come to this Court at the eleventh hour nay
59th minute of eleventh hour that too, by way of lunch motion
(without even a interim prayer) and the festival is tomorrow
(27.08.2025).
12. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned writ appeal fails and the same is
dismissed. Considering the nature of the matter, we refrain from imposing
costs.
(M.S., J.) (R.S.V., J.)
26.08.2025
gya
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Upload forthwith.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:11 pm )
M.SUNDAR, J.
AND
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
gya
To
1.The District Collector
Collector Office Rd, Moovendar Nagar
Villupuram District
2.The Tahsildar, Marakkanam
Villupuram District
3.The Village Administrative Officer
Kilputhapettu, Marakkanam
Villupuram District
26.08.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:11 pm )
