[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Thiruvavadudurai Adhinam vs The District Forest Officer on 6 March, 2026

Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy

Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy

                                                                                            W.P(MD)No.6063 of 2026

                             BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                           Dated: 06.03.2026

                                                                  CORAM

                                     THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA
                                               CHAKRAVARTHY

                                                   W.P(MD)No.6063 of 2026
                                                           and
                                                  W.M.P(MD)No.5095 of 2026

                      Thiruvavadudurai Adhinam,
                      Rep.by South Zone Manager,
                      G.Ramachandran                                                          ... Petitioner

                                                                       Vs.


                      The District Forest Officer,
                      Tenkasi Division,
                      Kaalaankarai, Senkottai,
                      Tenkasi District-627 809.                                               ...Respondent


                                  Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                      praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
                      pertaining to the impugned notice in Na.Ka.No.Va2/4458/2024, dated
                      11.02.2026 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently
                      direct the respondent not to interfere into administration of the petitioner's
                      Mutt's lands in Patta 1, situated at Mekkarai Village, Sengkottai Taluk,
                      Tenkasi District without due process of law.

                                        For Petitioner                 :Mr.M.Ramu
                                        For Respondent                 :Mr.M.Lingadurai
                                                                        Special Government Pleader


                      1



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                   ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 11:37:04 am )
                                                                                            W.P(MD)No.6063 of 2026


                                                                 ORDER

The writ petition is filed, challenging the impugned order dated

11.02.2026.

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing

the material records of the case, it can be seen that the impugned notice

states that the petitioner has to produce the five documents mentioned

therein and it further states that, in spite of earlier direction issued by this

Court to produce the said document, the petitioner is not producing the same

and the petitioner is violating the order. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is

before this Court.

3. The factual basis on which the impugned order came to be passed

is that there is a reserved forest, namely Puliyarai Reserve Forest extending

to the Mekkarai village also. It is contended by the Forest Department that

there is a superstructure and building wherein a the Resort is conducted in

the name style of Mohan Resorts, Karikalam. The same is only 60 meter

from the reserve forest boundary. The inmates staying in the said resort are

indulging in Camp fire, use of loudspeaker in the night, singing and dancing

etc., The pictures of the wildlife, including tigers, elephants, in the vicinity

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 11:37:04 am )

are also produced. In the said circumstances all that, the Forest Department

wants to verify that whether or not such a resort is put up after due

permission of the local authorities and whether it is in accordance with the

law as at any moment, a human animal conflict is likely.

4. Secondly, the noctural environment in the area cannot be disturbed.

With that object in mind, when they issued an earlier notice, the petitioner

challenged the same before this court by way of writ petition in

W.P(MD)No.24971 of 2025.

5. The contention of the petitioner was that the language of the notice

itself was defamatory and was unnecessarily issued to the petitioner, which

is Adhinam holding pious position in the society. The court also noted that

the language could have been different, at the same time also recognized the

purpose with which the notice is issued and passed the following order and

it is essential to extract para 7 of the said order, which is as under:-

“7. The language of the communication could have been better and more appropriately worded. The learned counsel for the petitioner is right in expressing his anguish. Be that as it may, only to facilitate the Forest Department to take effective action for protection of wild life as well as the forest area, certain details have been sought from the petitioner. The petitioner need not part with the original

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 11:37:04 am )

documents. He can assist the respondent by furnishing the photo copies of the documents that have been sought from him. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned communication.”

6. It is now stated in the present impugned order that even after the

same, the documents are not furnished and therefore, the present notice is

issued. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner when they issued

a reply they had attached the documents which are necessary, therefore, no

further documents need be asked from the petitioner.

7. Per Contra, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit

that the relevant particulars, including the ownership, the permissions that

are granted by the local authority have to be verified by the forest

department in order to come to any conclusion, so as to take any further

action or even to request the appropriate other departments to take action.

8. I have considered the rival submissions made on either and perused

the material records of the case.

9. The parties are bound by the earlier order which is extracted supra.

Therefore, it was expected of the petitioner to furnish photocopies of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 11:37:04 am )

documents. It is the contention of the petitioner that some of the documents

have already been annexed along with their reply also. Be that as it may,

five specific documents are now mentioned in the impugned notice. The

petitioner shall, in respect of each item, furnish photocopies of the

documents, if available, by mentioning the item number and describing the

document. In respect of any entry for which the petitioner does not have the

document, the petitioner may state that no such document as requested is

available. Upon such furnishing of documents, the same may be looked into

by the respondent authority. This writ petition is disposed of in the

following terms:-

(i) Within two weeks from the date of receipt of the web

copy of the order, the petitioner shall give item wise reply for

the five documents mentioned in the impugned notice.

Wherever the documents are available, the photocopies of the

same shall be enclosed. Wherever the documents are not

available, the reason shall be specifically stated as to the

documents are not available. The respondents shall consider the

same and pass orders in accordance with law.

(ii) Needless to mention that the documents in respect of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 11:37:04 am )

the survey number where the resort building in question alone

be circulated and not in respect of the entire land holding of the

petitioner Adhinam.

(iii) As a matter of fact, the survey numbers are already

mentioned in the impugned notice with reference to the survey