M/s. Om Shri Vari Stones Limited vs The State Rep by the Superintendent of Police

WP Crl. No. 2638 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
WP Crl. No. 2638 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012361902026}
M/s. Om Shri Vari Stones Limited
Represented by its Managing Director,
P.Vadivel,
Unit at S.F.Nos.37/2, 4 to 13,
Nallamur Village,
Maduranthagam Taluk,
Chengalpattu District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Rep by the Superintendent of Police
Chengalpet District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Maduranthagam Division,
Maduranthagam Taluk.
Chengalpet District.
3. The Inspector of Police
Sithamur Police Station,
Maduranthagam Taluk,
Chengalpet District.
4. Muthulingam
S/o.Perumal,
Kolathur Village,
Maduranthagam Taluk,
Chengalpet District.
5. Kannayiram
S/o.Perumal,
Kolathur Village,
Maduranthagam Taluk,
Chengalpet District.
6. Selvam
__________
Page1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:32 pm )

WP Crl. No. 2638 of 2026
S/o.Mari,
Kolathur Village,
Maduranthagam Taluk,
Chengalpet District.
7. Sri Ramulu
S/o.Manickam,
Kolathur Village,
Maduranthagam Taluk,
Chengalpet District.
8. Nagappan
S/o.Dhanapal,
Kolathur Village,
Maduranthagam Taluk,
Chengalpet District.
(R4 to R8 are suomotu impleaded as per the
order of this court dated 07.10.2026 in
WP.Crl.No.2638 of 2026)
..Respondent(s)
To issue an order or orders or directions or writs in the nature of
Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate Police
Protection to the petitioner company, its employees, agents, labourers for
operating and transporting blue-metals, M-Sand, P-Sand from S.F.Nos.37/4 to
13 of Nallamur Village, Maduranthagam Taluk, Chengalpet District by
considering the petitioners complaint dated 15.09.2026 and pass such further or
other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Suresh
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, Counsel for
Government of Tamil Nadu
(Crl. Side) for R1 to R3
Ms.K.Subhashini for
M/s.Chennai Law Associates
for R4 to R8
__________
Page2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:32 pm )

WP Crl. No. 2638 of 2026
O RDER
The petitioner claims to be carrying on the business of crushing rough
stones and converting the same into blue-metal. He is performing the said
activities at S.F.Nos.37/4 to 13 of Nallamur Village, Maduranthagam Taluk,
Chengalpattu District. The petitioner has all the requisite permissions, including
those from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, in place.
2. The cause of action in the present writ petition arose on account of the
fact that respondents 4 to 8 are preventing the petitioner from plying his vehicle
carrying the blue metal and other produces via Kolathur - Kottivakkam Road in
Maduranthagam Taluk, Chengalpattu District. Hence, he seeks police
protection.
3. When the matter came up for admission, I noticed that the objectors
had not been impleaded. Therefore, they were suo motu impleaded and arrayed
as respondents 4 to 8. Notice was ordered to them. They have been served and
M/s.Chennai Law Associates have entered appearance on their behalf.
4. It is the plea of the petitioner that the business is a legitimate one and
the petitioner is plying his vehicles on a public road. He states that the inaction
__________
Page3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:32 pm )

WP Crl. No. 2638 of 2026
of respondents 1 to 3 in preventing the obstructive activities of respondents 4 to
8 has caused him huge loss, and thus, he is unable to carry on business.
5. Ms. Subhashini, appearing for M/s.Chennai Law Associates, submits
that the regular route of the petitioner is through Peruveli to Kottivakkam, but
he is adopting a shortcut through Kolathur-Kottivakkam Road in order to reduce
his travel route. She adds that the petitioner has laid a pathway across a
“Meikkal Poromboke” after removal of the trees. Taking into consideration all
these activities, respondents 4 to 8 have given an objection on 24.08.2026 to the
Revenue Divisional Officer at Maduranthagam. In order to avoid an enquiry,
the present writ petition has come to be presented. She adds that this Court can
give a direction as done in Gouri Dandasena Sarpanch, Mahulpali G.P. and
others v. State of Odisha, AIR 2018 ORISSA 69.
6. Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar reports that the fear of the private respondents is
unfounded. During school hours, no heavy vehicle plies on the road. He states
that on account of the obstruction created by respondents 4 to 8, the business of
the petitioner has been closed on for 60 days.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made on both sides. I have
gone through the records.
__________
Page4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:32 pm )

WP Crl. No. 2638 of 2026
8. The petitioner seeks for police protection on account of the fact that the
residents of Nallamur Village situated in Kolathur – Kottivakam Road are
preventing the plying of his vehicles. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s
business is a legitimate one. A perusal of the typed set of papers shows that the
petitioner is carrying on business after obtaining appropriate licence and
permissions from the Mines, Revenue and Pollution Control Departments. The
grievance of the private respondents is that on account of the plying of the
vehicles by the writ petitioner, it is putting the lives of the school going children
at risk. At this stage, I have to note of the submissions made by Mr.S.Yogaraja
Sekar that the vehicles are not plying during the hours when the school going
children use the road.
9. The plea of Ms.Subhashini that the petitioner has laid a path across the
“Meikkal Poromboke” and is utilising it to reach the main road does not cut ice
with this Court. Meikkal Poromboke does not belong to private respondents. If
the petitioner has encroached the Meikkal Poromboke, it is for the Revenue
Department to initiate action. The private respondents cannot take law into
their hands and prevent the plying of vehicles on a public road. The Kolathur –
Kottivakkam Road is not a private road belonging to respondents 4 to 8. It is a
public road. Any person can traverse over and return on a road which vests
with the Government or a local body.
__________
Page5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:32 pm )

WP Crl. No. 2638 of 2026
10. The action of respondents 4 to 8 in preventing the petitioner from
operating his vehicles on a public road should have forced the third respondent
to take immediate action against them. No person can be prevented unlawfully
from using a road, especially by using third degree methods. If the private
respondents had a grievance as regards the usage of heavy vehicles on the road,
they should have moved the appropriate authority under the Motor Vehicles Act
and obtained an order preventing the usage of a class of vehicles over the said
area. As long as no such order is passed, the vehicles belonging to the
petitioner cannot be prevented from accessing the public road.
11. Insofar as the judgment of the Orissa High Court in Gouri
Dandesena’s case (cited supra) is concerned, it was a case where an order was
passed by the District Collector in exercise of Section 115 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. That order was put to challenge before the Orissa High
Court. No such order exists in the present case. Therefore, that judgment is
factually distinguishable.
12. It is the plea of Ms.Subhashini that this Court should pass an order
restricting the usage of a public road. I am not aware of any law which enables
the Court to pass an order akin to an order passed under Section 115 of the
Motor Vehicles Act. When an authority is vested a power, it is for that authority
__________
Page6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:32 pm )

WP Crl. No. 2638 of 2026
to exercise that power and not for this Court to usurp the said jurisdiction and
pass an order.
13. As the usage is of a public road and the petitioner is indulging in a
legitimate business, the third respondent is directed to afford protection on
payment of Rs.4,000/- per day by the petitioner.
14. With the above direction, this writ petition is ordered.
10-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
KAL
__________
Page7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:32 pm )

WP Crl. No. 2638 of 2026
To
1. The State Rep by the Superintendent of Police
Chengalpattu District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Maduranthagam Division,
Maduranthagam Taluk.
3. The Inspector of Police
Sithamur Police Station,
Maduranthagam Taluk,
Chengalpet District.
4. Muthulingam
S/o.Perumal,
Kolathur Village,
Maduranthagam Taluk,
Chengalpet District.
5. Kannayiram
S/o.Perumal,
Kolathur Village,
Maduranthagam Taluk,
Chengalpet District.
6. Selvam
S/o.Mari,
Kolathur Village,
Maduranthagam Taluk,
Chengalpet District.
7. Sri Ramulu
S/o.Manickam,
Kolathur Village,
Maduranthagam Taluk,
Chengalpet District.
8. Nagappan
S/o.Dhanapal,
Kolathur Village,
Maduranthagam Taluk,
Chengalpet District.
__________
Page8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:32 pm )

WP Crl. No. 2638 of 2026
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
KAL
WP Crl. No. 2638 of 2026
10-11-2026
__________
Page9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:32 pm )