S.Subash vs The District Forest Officer — WP(MD)/14327/2026

Case under Others Section other. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 20th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMD010680202026

Filing Number

WP(MD)/41759/2026

Filing Date

19-May-2026

Registration No

WP(MD)/14327/2026

Registration Date

19-May-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr Justice D.bharatha Chakravarthy , Honourable Ms.Justice R. Poornima

Coram

Honourable Mr Justice D.bharatha Chakravarthy , Honourable Ms.Justice R. Poornima

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

Public Interest Litigation ( 128 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

20-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 30-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Others Section other

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.S.Subash

    Adv. POOVALINGAM R,D.VIGNESH-MS/3893/2019,D.VIGNESH-MS/3893/2019, ,G.KALIDOSS,D.GOWTHAM ,D.VIGNESH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The District Forest Officer

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 20-May-2026

    Honourable Mr Justice D.bharatha CHAKRAVARTHY,Honourable Ms.Justice R. PoornimaView PDF

    Case Summary: WP(MD) 14327/2026 The Madras High Court dismissed S. Subash's petition challenging entry fees at Old Courtallam Falls. The Court held that the fees are authorized under Government Order G.O(Ms)No.11 (2018) and a prior 2022 court order had already permitted their collection, making them not "unauthorized." The Court clarified the charged amount is an entry fee, not a bathing fee, but left open the petitioner's option to separately challenge the government order itself. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 20-May-2026

    For Admission (Pil)

    Honourable Mr Justice D.bharatha Chakravarthy , Honourable Ms.Justice R. Poornima

  4. 19-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(MD)/14327/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP(MD) 14327/2026 The Madras High Court dismissed S. Subash's petition challenging entry fees at Old Courtallam Falls. The Court held that the fees are authorized under Government Order G.O(Ms)No.11 (2018) and a prior 2022 court order had already permitted their collection, making them not "unauthorized." The Court clarified the charged amount is an entry fee, not a bathing fee, but left open the petitioner's option to separately challenge the government order itself. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case