M.Raja @ Aasirvadham vs The State rep by — WP/18515/2026

Case under Others Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF on 02nd June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA010868962026

Filing Number

WP/64306/2026

Filing Date

09-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/18515/2026

Registration Date

06-May-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr.Justice Mohammed Shaffiq

Coram

Honourable Mr.Justice Mohammed Shaffiq

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

General Miscellaneous ( 78 )

Judicial Branch

WRITSECTION

Decision Date

02-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Others Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M.Raja @ Aasirvadham

    Adv. R.Thirumoorthy, S.Arunkumar,S.Sivasekar,M.Kishore,K.Sundarraj,L.Prathap,J.Ganesh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State rep by

  2. 2.The Executive Engineer

  3. 3.The Assistant Director

  4. 4.The Tahsildar

  5. 5.Balasubramanian

  6. 6.Gomathi Nirmalraj

  7. 7.Pachaiyappan

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr.Justice Mohammed ShaffiqView PDF

    The Madras High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by M. Raja seeking mandamus to direct respondent authorities to take action on a District Collector's communication regarding illegal fishing rights and sand mining. The court found the petition was essentially public interest litigation rather than a private dispute, as the petitioner lacked direct personal interest but sought to curb illegal activities in larger public interest. The court disposed of the petition and advised the petitioner to file a formal public interest litigation against illegal activities affecting public interest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-Jun-2026

    For Admission

    Honourable Mr.Justice Mohammed Shaffiq

  4. 09-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/18515/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Madras High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by M. Raja seeking mandamus to direct respondent authorities to take action on a District Collector's communication regarding illegal fishing rights and sand mining. The court found the petition was essentially public interest litigation rather than a private dispute, as the petitioner lacked direct personal interest but sought to curb illegal activities in larger public interest. The court disposed of the petition and advised the petitioner to file a formal public interest litigation against illegal activities affecting public interest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case