Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Veera Kumar, filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 (District Collector, Block Development Officer, and Tahsildar) to consider his representation dated 22.01.2022 and to remove the alleged illegal encroachment and occupation by the 4th respondent on a government road and Vaikkal Poromboke. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Selvaraj, submitted that he could not secure instructions from the petitioner to proceed with the matter and reported no instructions. In view of this, the court, comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan, closed the writ petition without any adjudication on the merits. The order was made by Justice S.M. Subramaniam. The court did not issue any directions regarding the alleged encroachment. The petition was disposed of solely on the ground of non-prosecution due to lack of instructions from the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Writ Law - Non-Prosecution - Closure of Petition - Petitioner's counsel reported inability to secure instructions from petitioner - Court closed the writ petition without adjudicating on merits - Held that when counsel reports no instructions, the petition cannot be proceeded with and is liable to be closed (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the court should direct removal of alleged encroachment when petitioner's counsel reports no instructions.
Final Decision
The writ petition is closed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Writ petition closed for non-prosecution
- no instructions from petitioner
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (02) 271
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, C.KUMARAPPAN
Mr.K.Selvaraj for Petitioner, Mr.T.Arun Kumar, AGP for R1 to R3
The District Collector, The Block Development Officer, The Tasildar, Mr.Palanisamy @ Palani
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking direction to remove alleged illegal encroachment on government road and Vaikkal Poromboke.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought direction to respondents 1 to 3 to consider his representation dated 22.01.2022 and to remove the alleged illegal encroachment and occupation by the 4th respondent.
Filing Reason
Alleged illegal encroachment and occupation by the 4th respondent on government road and Vaikkal Poromboke.
Issues
Whether the court should direct removal of alleged encroachment when petitioner's counsel reports no instructions.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel submitted that he could not secure instructions from the petitioner to proceed with the matter and reported no instructions.
Ratio Decidendi
When counsel reports no instructions from the petitioner, the petition cannot be proceeded with and is liable to be closed without adjudication on merits.
Judgment Excerpts
learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he could not be able to secure instructions from the petitioner to get along with the matter and reports no instructions.
In view of the above, the present Writ Petition is closed. No closed.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed in 2022. When taken up for hearing on 16-02-2026, petitioner's counsel reported no instructions, leading to closure.
