(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to ensure that the construction of Muthuramalingam Thevar Brone Statue and mandapam is restored strictly in conformity with the permission granted by the second respondent in Ni.Mu.No.2682342/2024/C1, dated 11.06.2025, in accordance with the law within the time stipulated by this Court.)

Dr. G. Jayachandran, J.

1. This Public Interest Litigation is filed alleging that the replacement of the cement statue with a bronze statue of Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar on the existing Manimandapam at the entrance of Alanganallur Bus Stand is in contravention to the permission granted earlier and the organizers of the Construction Committee are now trying to expand the base size and height of the structure under the guise of renovation and installing a bronze statue.

2. This Court, on considering the nature of the grievance raised by the public interested person, had earlier, vide order dated 12.11.2025, directed the respondents to furnish the permission / sanction granted for construction of Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar statue and Manimandapam containing the dimensions of both and adjourned the matter.

3. The writ petitioner has now come forward and submitted a letter dated 03.12.2025 to the Registry seeking to withdraw this writ petition by stating that the village leaders had a Peace Committee Meeting and to maintain harmony between two communities, they have decided not to interfere with the renovation work of the Memorial Manimandapam and installing a bronze statue of Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 would submit that the villagers, pursuant to the Peace Committee Meeting, have decided not to interfere with the renovation work of the Memorial Manimandapam and installing a bronze statue of Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar and the Construction Committee has also given an undertaking that the renovation of the structure will not be in deviation of the permission earlier granted under the Government Order in G.O.1067 of the year 1987.

5. Mr.Henri Tiphagne, learned counsel, who wants to intervene in this matter, brought to the notice of this Court the proceedings of the District Collector, Madurai, dated 11.06.2025, whereby permission has been granted for renovation of the Memorial Manimandapam and the statue of Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar with reference to the Government Order in G.O.1067 of the year 1987 and the existing measurement of the Memorial Manimandapam as it exists.

6. From the above proceedings of the District Collector, Madurai, we are able to find that the base size of the existing Memorial Manimandapam is 10 X 10 feet and the height is 25 feet and on the said Manimandapam, the cement statue of Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar with a height of 10 feet was permitted to be installed. Further, in the said proceedings, the District Collector has also permitted the Construction Committee to install the statue at the appropriate height without causing hindrance to the public.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent, who is the President of Pasumpon Muthuramalingam Thevar Silai Paripalan and Thirupani Kuzhu, submits that the sixth respondent has given an undertaking that the base size of the upcoming structure will be 10X10 feet and the height will be 2 feet from the surface and four pillars having a height of six feet for Manimandapam will be erected and on the said Manimandapam, the bronze statue of Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar having a height of 10 feet will be installed. Further, to cover the statue, a dome will be constructed and in any event, the height of the entire structure will not be over and above 25 feet.

8. From the above submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General and the undertaking given by the sixth respondent, this Court finds that the report of the Executive Officer of Alanganallur Selection Grade Panchayat, dated 10.10.2025, contains the details about the measurement of the Manimandapam prior to its renovation. The present undertaking given by the sixth respondent is more or less is of the same size and the sixth respondent has also undertaken that the height of the entire structure (base, manimandapam, statue and dome) will not be over and above 25 feet.

9. In the said circumstances, taking note of the fact that the local citizens have arrived at a compromise with regard to the construction of the Memorial Manimandapam and they want to live in peace, this Court is of the view that the local citizens have to be left free without any external influence. As long as the upcoming structure will not be in deviation of the size prescribed, there is no necessity for the Court to interfere in the renovation work of the Memorial Manimandapam.

10. Hence, recording the undertaking given by the sixth respondent, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.