Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 148345 (MAD)

Swami Sri Muruganantha Saraswathy v. Government of Tamilnadu

WP(MD)/18589/2025 · 2025-07-10

B Pugalendhi, G R Swaminathan

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

W.P(MD)No.18589 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.07.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI W.P(MD)No.18589 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.14239 & 14240 of 2025 Swami Sri MurugananthaSaraswathy, The Managing Trustee of Sri Vaishnavi Devi Devasthanam, No.5, 1st Cross Street, Vaishnavipuram, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Public Works Department, Fort St.George, Chennai. 2.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 3.The Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Organization, Public Works Department, 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.18589 of 2025 MelvaipaaruVadinilaUpakottam, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned notice of the third respondent dated 11.06.2025 in Letter No.Ko. 14/2025/Vu.Po(Thiruvi) and to quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the third respondent to permit the petitioner to usage of the temporary culvert for the purpose of till the complete of work of the construction in the Sri Vaishnavi Devi Devasthanam Temple and quash the same is illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramkumar For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinodh Government Advocate ORDER Heard both sides. 2.The petitioner is putting up a temple in Sivanthipatti Village. In order to transport construction materials across the channel that is flowing through the area, the petitioner on his own laid a road. Of course, he has been careful enough to put up two pipe like structures to ensure the free flow of water but the petitioner cannot do so on his own. He ought to have obtained 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.18589 of 2025 permission form the third respondent. That is why the third respondent rightly issued the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to remove the said construction. 3.We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned communication. We, however, grant liberty to the petitioner approach the authorities concerned and obtain permission. 4.This Writ Petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition are closed. [G.R.S., J.] [B.P., J.] 10.07.2025 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No MGA To 1.The Secretary, Government of India, Public Works Department, Fort St.George, Chennai. 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.18589 of 2025 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J and B.PUGALENDHI, J. MGA 2.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 3.The Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Organization, Public Works Department, MelvaipaaruVadinilaUpakottam, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. W.P(MD)No.18589 of 2025 10.07.2025 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis