| |
CDJ 2026 MHC 213
|
| Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras |
| Case No : W.P. No. 265 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN |
| Parties : R. Ganeshan Versus The District Collector, Collectorate, Nilgiris & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: M/s. G. Jaisivaramaraj, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, M. Shajahan, SGP, R2, Dr. T. Seenivasan, SGP, R3, Md. Aseef, Advocate. |
| Date of Judgment : 08-01-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
| Subject |
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations, and Sections Mentioned:
- None
2. Catch Words:
- Quash, Vested Right, Permission, Booking, Writ Petition
3. Summary:
The petitioner, Neelagiri Maavatta Tamil Sangam, sought permission to hold functions on 10‑01‑2026 and 11‑01‑2026 at Gandhi Thidal and to quash the order limiting permission to only 10‑01‑2026. The 2nd respondent had already allotted 11‑01‑2026 to the 3rd respondent, who had paid earlier. The court examined the submissions and records, noting that both events could not be held on the same day. To protect the vested rights of the 3rd respondent, the court directed that the petitioner be allowed to use the venue for the entire day on 10‑01‑2026 only, and not on 11‑01‑2026. The writ petition was therefore disposed of without granting the relief sought.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: calling for the records in Na.Ka.No.1265/2025 H1 dated 12.12.2025 passed by the 2nd Respondent and quash the part that the permission cannot be given to petitioner’s Association for the date 11.01.2026 at Gandhi Thidal and direct the 2nd Respondent to give permission to the petitioners Association namely Neelagiri Maavatta Tamil Sangam, for holding a function at Gandhi Thidal in Gudalur, for the date 11.01.2026 as well.)
1. The petitioner claims to represent the  . This Sangam was formed about 25 years ago. In commemoration of the said event, they proposed to hold events and meetings on 10.01.2026 and 11.01.2026. Accordingly, they paid fees to the 2nd respondent in order to enable the 2nd respondent to permit the holding of function at Gandhi Thidal in Guddalur.
2. The petitioner states that when it paid the fees on 08.12.2025, the 2nd respondent held out to him that on 10th and 11th of January, 2026 will be kept free for the writ petitioner. However, to the shock and surprise, they were served with the impugned order on 12.12.2025 stating that permission can be granted only for holding the function at Gandhi Thidal on 10th January, 2026 alone, as 11th January 2026 had already been allotted to the 3rd respondent, viz.,   Guddalur Tamil Sangam. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition.
3. Heard Mr.Jaisivaramaraj for the petitioner and Mr.M.Shajahan for R1, Dr.T.Seenivasan for R2 and Mr.Mohammed Aseef for R3.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments stated in the affidavit, and pleaded when the 2nd respondent has received the amounts for two days, it is not open to it to restrict the permission only to one day. He states that at the time of payment of fees, the 2nd respondent agreed to allot both the dates, but for the reasons best known to him, he had allotted 11th January 2026 to the 3rd respondent.
5. Per Contra, Mr.Mohammed Aseef states that the 3rd respondent had paid fees on 24.11.2025 at least a fortnight, before the writ petitioner. The fees was paid for the stage at Gandhi Thidal in Guddalur for the event on 11.01.2026. The 3rd respondent, having paid the fee earlier, he pleads that the writ petition is totally misconceived. He also relies upon the pamphlets, that has been received by the writ petitioner to state that the event will be held only on 10.01.2026 from 2.00 p.m. onwards.
6. Dr.T.Seenivasan has produced the instructions of the 2nd respondent, which supports the averments of Mr.Mohammed Aseef.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and gone through the records.
8. The issue that has been presented can be easily resolved. The petitioner has booked the Gandhi Thidal for 10th and 11th of January 2026, and even before that, the 3rd respondent had booked the Gandhi Thidal for holding a meeting on 11.01.2026. At the same time, the two meetings cannot be held.
9. If I were to quash the impugned order, the vested right of the 3rd respondent would be affected. Hence, there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to hold events on the entire day on 10.01.2026 instead of starting the meeting at 2.00 p.m. as contemplated. Hence, there shall be a direction to the 1st respondent open the Gandhi Thidal to enable the writ petitioner to hold the meeting both in the forenoon as well as in the afternoon on 10.01.2026.
10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
|
| |
