(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned communication dated 25.05.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.275/2026/A2 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents not to interfere with the business of the petitioner in any manner, carried on at the premises situated at Survey No.115/1B, 115/2, 115/3, 115/4, 115/5, 117/1A1, 117/1A2A1, 117/1B, 117/2, 117/7, 117/8, 117/14, 234/1F, 235/1, 235/2A, A.Jethihalli Village, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District.)

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the third respondent dated 25.05.2026, thereby ordering to take necessary steps to seek police protection to hand over the tamarind to the agriculturalists which was already kept in the cold storage and also directing the revenue department to monitor the same.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3. There are two partnership firms, namely “Vennila Cold Storage” and “New Vennila Cold Storage”, in which the petitioner, the fourth respondent, and others are partners. The petitioner and the fourth respondent are brothers. Both the partnership firms are running their cold storage in the land comprised in Survey No.115/1B, 115/2, 115/3, 115/4, 115/5, 117/1A1, 117/1A2A1, 117/1B, 117/2, 117/7, 117/8, 117/14, 234/1F, 235/1, 235/2A, situated at A.Jethihalli Village, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District. The said property stands in the name of the fourth respondent. As per the Partnership Deed, the petitioner is also having equal share in the partnership firm. The agriculturalists used to store their tamarind from time to time on rental basis, in the cold storage run by the partnership firm. Whenever they get fair price for their products, they will take it away from the cold storage warehouse and sell it in the market. So far, in the cold storage the partnership firm had stored huge quantum of tamarind.

4. While being so, there is a dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent in respect of their partnership. Therefore, the petitioner instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.14 of 2014 on the file of the District Court, Dharmapuri, for injunction as against the fourth respondent herein. While pending the suit, the petitioner also filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.20029 of 2026 forbearing the respondents and others from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties situated at cold storage warehouse and other units. This Court by an order dated 20.05.2026 dismissed the said Writ Petition and directed the petitioner to approach the civil Court.

5. Already, the petitioner also filed a suit in O.S.No.105 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri against which the fourth respondent and others filed the Civil Revision Petitions before this Court to strike off the plaint. This Court by an order dated 30.12.2020, allowed the Civil Revision Petitions and rejected the plaint in O.S.No.105 of 2020 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dharmapuri. It was also confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by dismissing the Special Leave Petition in S.L.P.(C)Nos.2037- 2041 of 2021 by an order dated 09.02.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner as well as the fourth respondents filed so many Writ Petitions before this Court on their complaints with regard to the management of their business through the partnership firm.

6. While being so, the cold storage warehouse was leased out by the fourth respondent by way of an unregistered lease deed dated 15.05.2026 in favour of one Joshua Sathiaseelan for the period from 15.05.2026 to 15.04.2027. Thereafter, there was a dispute between the petitioner and fourth respondent and they lodged complaints against each other. They were issued CSR on the file of the Inspector of Police, Adhiyamankkotai Police Station, Dharmapuri District. Even after execution of lease deed in favour of the said Joshua Sathiaseelan, he was not permitted to operate the cold storage. Therefore, he lodged complaint seeking police protection to take away the tamarind which was kept in the cold storage and also for his employees.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the fourth respondent has no absolute right over the partnership firm to lease out the cold storage in favour of Joshua Sathiaseelan. The petitioner is, also being a partner, having 50% share over the partnership firm. They also run their business peacefully before the agreement for lease was executed and the petitioner operated the cold storage and received huge quantum of tamarind from the agriculturalists. Further the suits filed by the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent are pending.

8. Since there are so many complaints filed, the matter was referred before the third respondent for enquiry on the compliant lodged by the lessee. The third respondent conducted detailed enquiry and after considering the several disputes pending between the petitioner and the fourth respondent and also the several orders passed by this Court and also the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, directed to provide adequate police protection to return back the tamarind to the farmers and also directed the revenue department to monitor the same. Therefore, the direction issued by the third respondent is nothing to do with the partnership issue between the petitioner and the fourth respondent herein.

9. In the interest of justice, this Court also heard Mr.K.Balu, the learned counsel for the said Joshua Sathiaseelan and he assured that he would act in the interest of the farmers since the farmers, who had already kept the tamarind in the cold storage, requested the same to be returned. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the third respondent.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed off. It is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the civil Court for appropriate relief as against the fourth respondent in respect of their partnership disputes. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.