The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the release of water from the Vaigai river to three taluks in Ramanathapuram district. In a significant move, the court also imposed a cost of ₹500 on the petitioner for filing what it deemed a vexatious litigation, bypassing judicial discipline.
Court's Stern Stand on Repeated Petitions
A division bench comprising Justice G Jayachandran and Justice K K Ramakrishnan was hearing the plea filed by Kidathirukkai M Muniasamy, who serves as the president of the Tamil Nadu Legal Safety Movement based in Ramanathapuram. The petition sought a directive for authorities to release Vaigai water to Kadaladi, Mudukulathur, and Kamuthi taluks.
The bench took strong note of the fact that a similar petition had been filed earlier by another individual, M Prabhu, in 2018. That petition was disposed of in 2021 with a direction to the authorities to consider his representation. The authorities subsequently rejected Prabhu's representation in 2023.
History of Litigation and Water Scarcity Reality
Challenging this rejection order, Prabhu filed another petition in 2023, which was ultimately dismissed by the court in March 2025. The dismissal was based on a counter affidavit filed by the authorities, which presented a clear picture of water scarcity.
The affidavit stated that only 31 tanks in Mudukulathur taluk that fall under the Vaigai basin are entitled to receive water from the river. After a thorough examination, the authorities concluded that there was no scope to supply water to the three taluks mentioned in the latest PIL. The reason cited was a severe shortage, with even the last 10 of the 31 eligible tanks struggling to receive adequate supply.
Petitioner's Conduct and Judicial Cost Imposed
The court made a crucial observation: the present petitioner, Kidathirukkai M Muniasamy, had appeared as the counsel for Prabhu in the earlier petitions. The judges noted that despite the authorities passing a detailed "speaking order" with clear justifications for not supplying the water, a new PIL was filed under a different guise.
The bench stated that this amounted to a vexatious litigation. It emphasized that the petitioner failed to follow judicial discipline by not disclosing the history of the earlier related petitions to the court. This omission was a key factor in the decision to dismiss the plea and impose the monetary cost.
The cost of ₹500 is to be paid by the petitioner to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. The court also clarified that the irrigation rights of ayacutdars (farmers with water rights) are being protected through water supply from the Parthibanur dam.
