M. Krishnasamy, vs Subbayan and Co

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Jan 29, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1477825

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/1477825
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice V. Lakshminarayanan
Decided On: Jan 29, 2026
Case Number: WMP/29432/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M. Krishnasamy,

Respondent

Subbayan and Co

Excerpt

.....it will affect residential houses, schools, places of religious worships and agricultural cultivation lands situated within one kilometre radius of the unit. they also state that the petitioners have made false statements and suppressed material facts before the state level authority in order to secure permission. hence, they seek to be impleaded as respondent nos.6 to 11 in the writ petition.4. the fundamental principle of law relating to impleadment in civilproceedings also apply to writ proceedings. the principle is that a person has to be impeladed when no effective orders can be passed in her/his absence. when a person’s presence is not essential but would assist the court to effectively settle the issues, then such a person may be considered as a proper party. __________page 3 of 65. the prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of mandamusdirecting the 4th respondent to issue the necessary building plan approval for the construction of a coconut charcoal industrial unit at vavipalayam village. the power in this regard is to be exercised by the 4th respondent.6. in such proceedings, the presence of meddlesome interlopersand busy bodies, like the impleading petitioners, is neither necessary nor proper. if the petitioners are impleaded, it would not only be contrary to the principles relating to impleadment but would also embarrass the very proceedings. the purpose of the impleading petition appears to be, in one way or the other, to prevent the owner of the property from developing it and from establishing an industry. such kinds of attempts must be put down with on iron hand. hence, the miscellaneous petition is dismissed with cost of rs.5,000/-. 29.01.2026 index : yes/no internet : yes/no neutral citation : yes/no kkd __________page 4 of 6 to1. the district collector/ inspector of panchayat, district collectorate, tiruppur 641 604.2. the assistant director of panchayat, collectorate, tiruppur, tiruppur district.3. the block development officer,.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29-01-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN WMP.No.29432 of 2025 in WP No.25446 of 2025 1.M.Krishnasamy 2.S.Rathinasamy 3.P.Padmavathi 4.A.Sureshkumar 5.R.Rajamani .. Petitioners Vs.

1. Subbayan and Co., Rep.by its Partner S.Sivasakthivel

2. The District Collector/ Inspector of Panchayat, District Collectorate, Tiruppur 641 604.

3. The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Collectorate, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

4. The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayats), Pongalur Panchayat Union, Pongalur, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District.

5. The Special Officer, V.Vavipalayam Village Panchayat, V.Vavipalayam, Pongalur Panchayat Union, Pongalur, Tiruppur District. __________Page 1 of 6

6. The District Officer, Town and Country Planning, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District. .. Respondents Prayer : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to implead the petitioners as respondents in the above writ petition. For Petitioners : Mr.P.Nethaji For Respondents : Ms.C.Meera Arumugam Addl.Govt.Pleader - R1, R2 & R5. Mr.C.Sathish Govt.Advocate - R3 & R4

ORDER

The petitioners claim to be residents of Vavipalayam Village, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District. They seek to be impleaded in this petition on the ground that the establishment of the industry proposed by the writ petitioners would affect the Korangadu pasture lands. They state that the writ petitioners ought to have obtained permission from the Directorate of Town and Country Planning Department in terms of Tamil Nadu Change of Land Use (From Agriculture to Non-Agriculture Purposes in Non-Planning Areas) Rules, 2017. The petitioners also has placed reliance upon the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, alleging that there is a prohibition under Annexure-XVIII for the establishment of the said industry. __________Page 2 of 6

2. They further state that the Block Development Officer, namely,

the 4th respondent in this petition, had been informed through the Grama Sabha Resolution dated 02.10.2023 and the Village Panchayat Council Resolution dated 04.07.2024 emphasising the illegality in the construction that has been carried out by the writ petitioners.

3. The petitioners further state that if the charcoal unit of the writ

petitioners comes up, it will affect residential houses, schools, places of Religious Worships and Agricultural Cultivation Lands situated within one kilometre radius of the unit. They also state that the petitioners have made false statements and suppressed material facts before the State Level Authority in order to secure permission. Hence, they seek to be impleaded as respondent Nos.6 to 11 in the writ petition.

4. The fundamental principle of law relating to impleadment in civil

proceedings also apply to writ proceedings. The principle is that a person has to be impeladed when no effective orders can be passed in her/his absence. When a person’s presence is not essential but would assist the Court to effectively settle the issues, then such a person may be considered as a proper party. __________Page 3 of 6

5. The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of mandamus

directing the 4th respondent to issue the necessary building plan approval for the construction of a coconut charcoal industrial unit at Vavipalayam Village. The power in this regard is to be exercised by the 4th respondent.

6. In such proceedings, the presence of meddlesome interlopers

and busy bodies, like the impleading petitioners, is neither necessary nor proper. If the petitioners are impleaded, it would not only be contrary to the principles relating to impleadment but would also embarrass the very proceedings. The purpose of the impleading petition appears to be, in one way or the other, to prevent the owner of the property from developing it and from establishing an industry. Such kinds of attempts must be put down with on iron hand. Hence, the miscellaneous petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-. 29.01.2026 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No kkd __________Page 4 of 6 To

1. The District Collector/ Inspector of Panchayat, District Collectorate, Tiruppur 641 604.

2. The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Collectorate, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

3. The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayats), Pongalur Panchayat Union, Pongalur, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District.

4. The Special Officer, V.Vavipalayam Village Panchayat, V.Vavipalayam, Pongalur Panchayat Union, Pongalur, Tiruppur District.

5. The District Officer,

Town and Country Planning, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District. __________Page 5 of 6 V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J. kkd WMP.No.29432 of 2025 in W.P.No.25446 of 2025 29.01.2026 (1/2) __________Page 6 of 6

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties M. Krishnasamy, vs Subbayan and Co Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice V. Lakshminarayanan