Thalapathi Arunkumar Vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

Thalapathi Arunkumar vs The District Collector

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Feb 27, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1423637

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1423637
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable the Chief Justice,Honourable Mr.Justice G.Arul Murugan
Decided On: Feb 27, 2026
Case Number: WP/6054/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Thalapathi Arunkumar

Respondent

The District Collector

Excerpt

.....as a resort, from the turn of events culminating in issuance of the impugned notice on 13.1.2026, it is evident that, in compliance of various directions issued by this court from time to time to ensure stoppage of illegal resorts in and around tiger reserve area, inspections were carried out by the authorities andduring that inspection, according to the respondents, the petitioner was found using the premises as resort and not as a place of residence. even according to the petitioner, the respondent authorities have arrived at the spot, made spot inspection, that followed issuance of the impugned notice. therefore, what transpires is that it is a case of disputed questions of fact with regard to the actual use of the premises.3. in these circumstances, in exercise of our discretion, we arenot inclined to go into the disputes of factual nature. the petitioner has an alternative remedy. therefore, we leave it open for the petitioner to workout his remedy as may be available under the law. the writ petition is dismissed. there shall be no order as to costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (manindra mohan shrivastava, cj) (g.arul murugan,j) 27.02.2026 index : yes/no neutral citation : yes/no bbr to: 1.the district collector 2.the special officer/ block development officer (vp) 3.the tahsildar sathyamangalam, 4.the president hasanur panchayat, 5.the superintending engineer the tamil nadu generation and distribution corporation limited, the hon'ble chief justice andg.arul murugan,j.bbr 27.02.2026

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.02.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN and W.M.P.Nos.6561, 6563 and 6564 of 2026 Thalapathi Arunkumar S/o.Shanmugavadivel, No.10/303 Kamaraj Street, Avinashi Town, Avinashi Taluk, Tiruppur District Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector 2.The Special Officer/ Block Development Officer (VP) 3.The Tahsildar Sathyamangalam, 4.The President Hasanur Panchayat,
5.The Superintending Engineer The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating

to the impugned Lock and Seal order dated 13.01.2026 in Order

No.705/2025/B2-17 passed by the 2nd respondent quash the same. For Petitioner: Mr.M.Guruprasad For Respondents: Mr.E.Vijay Anand Addl. Government Pleader

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard.

2. Challenge to the notice dated 13.1.2026 is based essentially

on the issue of the actual use of the premises. Admittedly, according to the petitioner, the licence for using the building as resort was surrendered. Though it is the case of the petitioner that thereafter the petitioner has not used the building as a resort, from the turn of events culminating in issuance of the impugned notice on 13.1.2026, it is evident that, in compliance of various directions issued by this Court from time to time to ensure stoppage of illegal resorts in and around tiger reserve area, inspections were carried out by the authorities and

during that inspection, according to the respondents, the petitioner was found using the premises as resort and not as a place of residence. Even according to the petitioner, the respondent authorities have arrived at the spot, made spot inspection, that followed issuance of the impugned notice. Therefore, what transpires is that it is a case of disputed questions of fact with regard to the actual use of the premises.

3. In these circumstances, in exercise of our discretion, we are

not inclined to go into the disputes of factual nature. The petitioner has an alternative remedy. Therefore, we leave it open for the petitioner to workout his remedy as may be available under the law. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 27.02.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bbr To: 1.The District Collector 2.The Special Officer/ Block Development Officer (VP) 3.The Tahsildar Sathyamangalam, 4.The President Hasanur Panchayat, 5.The Superintending Engineer The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

bbr 27.02.2026

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties Thalapathi Arunkumar vs The District Collector Same Judge Honourable the Chief Justice,Honourable Mr.Justice G.Arul Mur...