Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 38109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R. Swaminathan, B. Pugalendhi, JJ
Salai Sivakumar – Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Madurai District – Respondent
W.P(MD)No.13477 of 2026|W.M.P.(MD)No.10011 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Karunanidhi
For the Respondents:Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar, Mr.S.Devasena, Mr.K.Gnanasekaran Government Advocate (Crl.side)
Court mandates immediate removal of repeated encroachment on public water channel with police protection.
Headnote:Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing removal of encroachment in Chinthamani Water Channel, referencing prior court order in W.P.(MD)No.15028 of 2020 dated 10.07.2025 and representation dated 23.04.2026. Essential facts include prefabricated iron shed erected by fourth respondent, previously removed in July 2025. Court found brazen defiance of rule of law, supported by photographs. Issues framed implicitly as whether repeated encroachment during electoral process warrants immediate removal. Ratio decidendi emphasizes intolerance for defiance of court orders and rule of law, directing appropriation of structure. Writ petition allowed without costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. repeated prefabricated shed encroachment identified. (Para 2) |
| 2. defiance of rule of law during elections intolerable. (Para 3) |
| 3. mandamus issued for immediate removal with protection. (Para 4 , 5) |
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for R1 & R3 and the learned standing counsel for R2 and the learned Government Advocate for R5.
2. The petitioner points out that encroachment has been committed in the form of a prefabricated iron shed. It is seen that similar encroachment was earlier made by the 4th respondent and it was also removed in July 2025.
3. Taking advantage of the engagement of the officials in the electoral process, encroachment has once again been committed. The photographs enclosed in the typed set of papers bear this out. This kind of brazen defiance of rule of law cannot be permitted.
4. We direct the second respondent to remove the offending structure and appropriate it for themselves. The fifth respondent is directed to provide police protection to enable the second respondent in the said process. This shall be completed immediately and without any delay.
5. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
