WP CRL.(MD)/5449/2026 of G.Saravanan Vs The Inspector of Police on 30 September 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned orders dated 05.07.2026 and 03.07.2026 passed by the respondents 1 and 2 respectively and consequently allow one day fasting the following date and place on 26.10.2026 in front of the Sattur Madurai Bus Stop, Virudhunagar District, and on 21.12.2026 in front of the Travelers Bungalow Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi Distict, against demolished building of Rani Mangammal Karupatti Catram used Kitchen room in the opposite of Madurai Railway Junction.

2. The petitioner, who appeared as a party-in-person, argued the case. Upon perusal of the papers, it was noticed that two separate rejection orders, one passed by the first respondent and the other by the second respondent, had been challenged in a single prayer in the present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus. The petitioner was, therefore, called upon to explain how the present writ petition is maintainable, particularly when two distinct causes of action arising from separate orders had been clubbed together in a single writ petition.

3. The petitioner, appearing as a party-in-person, submitted that he had submitted the same representation to both the first and second respondents, seeking permission to conduct a demonstration in a fasting manner. Since both the first and second respondents had rejected his request by separate orders, he had challenged both the rejection orders in the present writ petition. He further submitted that, as the relief sought for by him arose out of the same representation and related to the same subject matter, he had filed a single writ petition challenging both the rejection orders.

4. The petitioner was once again called upon to explain as to how the present writ petition would be maintainable by challenging two separate orders passed by two different respondents in a single writ petition and by seeking a common prayer. It was also put to him as to whether separate writ petitions ought to have been filed challenging each of the rejection orders.

5. At this stage, this Court called upon the Appeal Examiner to explain as to how the present writ petition had been numbered. Mr. Moovendran, Appeal Examiner, appeared before this Court and referred to Rule 3 of the Madras High Court Writ Rules, 2021. He submitted that the said Rule permits a petition to contain multiple prayers and alternative reliefs arising out of the same cause of action. He further submitted that, where multiple reliefs are sought, separate Court fees are required to be paid for each such relief, as prescribed under the relevant Rules.

6. As per Rule 3(3) of the Madras High Court Writ Rules, 2021, it is permissible to seek multiple reliefs in a single writ petition, provided that such reliefs arise out of the same cause of action. However, in the present case, the two rejection orders have been passed by two different Inspectors of Police and arise out of distinct causes of action. Therefore, the benefit of the said Rule cannot be extended to the present case for maintaining a single writ petition challenging both the rejection orders.

7. When the aforesaid provision was brought to the notice of the petitioner, the petitioner submitted that, if two separate writ petitions are required to be filed challenging the two different rejection orders, he may be permitted to do so and that the Court may refund the two Court fees paid by him.

8. The request made by the petitioner appears to be genuine. Since the present writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that two distinct causes of action have been clubbed together in a single writ petition, the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability. However, taking note of the submission made by the petitioner, the Registry is directed to refund the Court fee to the petitioner, in accordance with the Rules prevailing in respect of refund of Court fee to a party-in-person. It is made clear that the dismissal of the present writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from challenging the respective rejection orders by filing two separate writ petitions, if so advised and if otherwise maintainable in law.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of maintainability. The original impugned orders of the first respondent and the second respondent, which are the subject matter of challenge in the two prayers made in the present writ petition, shall be returned to the petitioner, after retaining photocopies thereof for the purpose of record.

10. Having entertained a doubt regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, the Appeal Examiner placed the file before the Assistant Registrar (Writ), Mrs. Latha. The Assistant Registrar (Writ) directed the Appeal Examiner to club the two prayers and receive separate Court fees for the two reliefs sought, and accordingly, the writ petition was numbered.

11. In view of the above, the Registrar (Judicial) is requested to instruct the concerned Appeal Examiner to exercise due caution while scrutinising and numbering writ petitions in future, particularly in cases where multiple prayers arise out of distinct causes of action. Necessary instructions may also be issued to the concerned Registry officials in this regard. 30.09.2026 LS

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti West Police Station, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Copy to: The Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Note: Issue order copy on 08.10.2026

DR. P. MURUGAN, J. LS

W.P.Crl. (MD) No. 5449 of 2026 30.09.2026