WP No. 33337 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04-09-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI WP No. 33337 of 2025 and WMP NO. 37475 and 37477 of 2025 KAMALAKANNAN Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The District Collector O/o. Distirct Collector, Cuddalore District 2.The Block Development Officer O/o. Block Development Officer, Panruti Block And Tlauk, Cuddlaore 3.The Tashildar O/o. The Tahsildar Panruti Tlauk, Cuddalore District 4.Zonal Officcer Tamilnadu Transport Corporation Villupuram Ltd, Cuddalore District Respondent(s) PRAYER; This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the records and quash the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 33337 of 2025 order proceedings of 3rd respondent in Ref No. Na ka no. A2/1487/2025 dated nil 05.2025 and consequently direct the respondents to name the bus stop as Perperiyankuppam Panchayat, Muthandikukppam Market as approved and sanctioned by the respondent vide their communications. For Petitioner(s): Mr. Arockiadoss T for M/S.DASS AND VISWA ASSOCIATES For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Balamurugan, GA for R1 and R3 Mr. E. Sundaram for R2 ORDER This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings of 3rd respondent in Ref No. Na ka no. A2/1487/2025 dated nil 05.2025 and consequently, direct the respondents to name the bus stop as Perperiyankuppam Panchayat, Muthandikukppam Market as approved and sanctioned by the respondent vide their communications. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to Muthandikuppam Village in Perperiyankuppam Village Panchayat and the above panchayat consists of 6 villages and for the benefit the people belongs to petitioner's village, Muthandikuppam bus stand is constructed by the MLSCDS and the administrative order was issued by the first respondent on 09.10.2024. Based on which, the second respondent issued work order on 22.10.2024 ans based on the completion certificate, the first respondent sanctioned final amount https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 33337 of 2025 on 04.01.2025. In all the above proceedings, the bus stop is sanctioned and approved by the Government as Perperiyarkuppam Panchayat, Muthandikuppam Market and further, just opposite side i.e. Southern side, a bus stop is there, which is also called as Muthandikuppam bus stop which is 2 kms away from Perperiyankuppam. When such being so, few people from other villages, influenced the contractors and fixed name board as ''Perperiyandikuppam Bus Stand'' as against ''Muthandikuppam Bus Stand'' which created confusion among the commuters of the village. In this regard, the Muthandikuppam village people gave representation to the respondents and the 3 rd respondent convinced peace committee meeting on 17.04.2025 and despite serious objection, on nil.05.2025, the 3 rd respondent resolved and concluded the meeting that the bus stop constructed in Muthandikuppam Village to be called as Perperiyankuppam Bus stand without properly looking at the real facts and without any jurisdiction. Hence, the present writ petition has filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per section 158 of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, the panchayat alone is authorised name and renaming the public infrastructure including bus stop managed by panchayat and not by the 3 rd respondent. Therefore, the proceedings conducted by the 3 rd respondent is not sustainable and the same needs quashed. 4. The learned Government Advocate submitted that in the Government Order, the name of the bus stop has mentioned as Perperiyandikuppam Bus stop. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 33337 of 2025 The village peopled agitated for changing the name of the bus stop as ''Muthandikuppam Bus Stand'' and the said issue was landed before the peace committee, which was conducted by the third respondent. The third respondent has arrived at a conclusion on that based on the Government order, the name was fixed as Perperiyarkuppam Bus Stand, which is sustainable. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 6. The Fact in the present case is not in dispute. The petitioner is a resident of Muthandikuppam Village, Perperiyankuppam Village Panchayat, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District. The Muthandikuppam Village people has objected to name the bus stop as Perperiyankuppam. In this regard, a peace committed meeting has been conducted by the third respondent. As per Section 158 of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, the Panchayat alone is authorised name and renaming the public infrastructure including the bus stop managed by the Panchayat. Therefore, the 3 rd respondent arrived at a conclusion that based on the G.O. And the above said Section, the name was fixed as Perperiyankuppam Bus stop. The proceedings passed by the 3 rd respondent is perfectly in order and the same needs no interference. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 33337 of 2025 7. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 04-09-2025 rli Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No To 1.The District Collector O/o. District Collector, Cuddalore District 2.The Block Development Officer O/o. Block Development Officer, Panruti Block And Tlauk, Cuddlaore 3.The Tashildar O/o. The Tahsildar Panruti Tlauk, Cuddalore District https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 33337 of 2025 M.DHANDAPANI J. rli WP No. 33337 of 2025 04-09-2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis