W.P.(MD) No.11020 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.07.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.(MD)No.11020 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.8589 and 8590 of 2026 P.Senthil ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman of the Committee, Dindigul District Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) / The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2.The District Forest Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 3.The Forest Ranger, Batlagundu Zone, Thandikudi Road, Sitharevu Village, Authoor Taluk, Dindigul District. 4.Tamilvendan (R4 is suo motu impleaded vide order dated 17.04.2026) ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records pertaining to the Impugned Order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.3931942/2025/C5 dated 09.03.2026 quash the same as illegal and consequently directing first respondent to restore the order of the first _____________ Page No. 1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.11020 of 2026 respondent dated 04.07.2025 in S.R.07/2025/C5, granting permission to the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955 to cut and remove the standing trees in the petitioner's land in Survey Nos.5/1, 5/5, 6/1, 9/2, 10/1, 12/1, 23, 24, 25/1 and 25/2, situated at Kamanur Village, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District, and in furtherance to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to issue origin certificate to the petitioner to transport the felled trees from his above land as per the said permission of the first respondent forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Manickam For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.Parthiban Government Standing Counsel For R4 : Mr.C.Ramesh ORDER The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the first respondent, in his capacity as the Chairman of the Committee constituted under the Dindigul District Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) provisions. By the impugned order, the permission granted to the petitioner on 04.07.2025 by the first respondent, pursuant to the recommendation of the second respondent, has been cancelled. 2. The petitioner contends that the impugned order came to be passed at the instance of the fourth respondent, who had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(MD) No.32334 of 2025. _____________ Page No. 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.11020 of 2026 3. A reading of the impugned order indicates that it has been passed pursuant to the objections raised by the fourth respondent. However, the relief sought by the fourth respondent herein in W.P.(MD)No.32334 of 2025 was only for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the official respondents to prohibit the petitioner herein from using JCB, Hitachi and other heavy machinery for the purpose of laying an access road to transport trees situated in Survey Nos.5/1, 5/5, 6/1, 9/2, 10/1, 12/1, 23, 24, 25/1 and 25/2, at Kamanur Village, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District, and to take appropriate action on the basis of the representation dated 27.10.2025 submitted by the fourth respondent. The said writ petition came to be closed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 17.03.2026. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the official respondents fairly submitted that, since the impugned order was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, the matter may be remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration after hearing both the petitioner and the fourth respondent. _____________ Page No. 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.11020 of 2026 5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the official respondents, and on perusal of the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before the permission granted earlier was cancelled. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed, and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The first respondent shall afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner and the fourth respondent and thereafter, pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law. 6. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. NCC : Yes / No 15.07.2026 smn2 To 1.The Chairman of the Committee, Dindigul District Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) / The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. _____________ Page No. 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.11020 of 2026 2.The District Forest Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 3.The Forest Ranger, Batlagundu Zone, Thandikudi Road, Sitharevu Village, Authoor Taluk, Dindigul District. _____________ Page No. 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.11020 of 2026 C.SARAVANAN , J. smn2 W.P.(MD) No.11020 of 2026 15.07.2026 _____________ Page No. 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis