BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.07.2026 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL REV.APLW.(MD)No.9 of 2009 in W.P.(MD)No.10634 of 2008 A.Ravi ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The Union of India, Rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi. 2.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, Rural Sanitation Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 3.The Secretary, Department of Drinking Water Supply and Rural Development, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 4.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 5.The Block Development Officer, Sattur Union, Sattur, Virudhunagar District. 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6.The Tahsildar, Sattur, Virudhunagar District. 7.The President, Chinnakollapatti Panchayat, Virudhungar District-626 203. ... Respondents PRAYER:- Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, to review the order dated 18.02.2009 passed in W.P.(MD)No. 10634 of 2008 on the file of this Court. For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents : Mr.K.Govindarajan (R1) Deputy Solicitor General of India Mr.M.P.Senthil (R2 to R6) Counsel for State ORDER (Order of the Court was made by C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.) This review application has been filed by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No. 10634 of 2008. The said writ petition had been disposed by an order dated 18.02.2009, in which the following order has been passed:

The learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. Head the petitioner who is present in person and Mr.Rajarajan, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 to 7. 2.The Public Interest Litigation has been filed for directing the respondents to provide proper and adequate sanitation coverage in the 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis four villages of Chinnakollapatti Panchayat in Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. 3.It appears that representations, dated 04.12.2007 and 19.09.2008 had been submitted to the District Collector, Virudhunagar. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the contentions raised, we call upon the District Collector, Viriudhunagar, to consider the representation, dated 19.09.2008, and take any appropriate action, as may be found necessary, as expeditiously as possible. 4.The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Consequently connected M.Ps. Are closed. No costs.”

2.There is no representation on behalf of the review petitioner. 3.In the grounds seeking review, it had been stated that after filing of the writ petition, the award had been granted in accordance with the schedule and therefore, the petitioner had filed an application seeking consequential amendment of the prayer. The said petition was not considered. 4.It is a trite law to point out that under the guise of review, the Court cannot sit as an appellate forum. If a particular petition has not been considered by the court, then that could be a ground for appeal and not a ground for review. 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5.Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed. No costs. [C.V.K, J.] [R.S.V, J.] 10.07.2026 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No ta To 1.The Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi. 2.The Secretary, Rural Sanitation Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 3.The Secretary, Department of Drinking Water Supply and Rural Development, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 4.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 5.The Block Development Officer, Sattur Union, Sattur, Virudhunagar District. 6.The Tahsildar, Sattur, Virudhunagar District. 7.The President, Chinnakollapatti Panchayat, Virudhungar District-626 203. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J. AND R.SAKTHIVEL, J. ta REV.APLW.(MD)No.9 of 2009 10.07.2026 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.07.2026 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL REV.APLW.(MD)No.9 of 2009 in W.P.(MD)No.10634 of 2008 A.Ravi ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The Union of India, Rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi. 2.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, Rural Sanitation Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 3.The Secretary, Department of Drinking Water Supply and Rural Development, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 4.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 5.The Block Development Officer, Sattur Union, Sattur, Virudhunagar District. 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6.The Tahsildar, Sattur, Virudhunagar District. 7.The President, Chinnakollapatti Panchayat, Virudhungar District-626 203. ... Respondents PRAYER:- Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, to review the order dated 18.02.2009 passed in W.P.(MD)No. 10634 of 2008 on the file of this Court. For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents : Mr.K.Govindarajan (R1) Deputy Solicitor General of India Mr.M.P.Senthil (R2 to R6) Counsel for State ORDER (Order of the Court was made by C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.) This review application has been filed by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No. 10634 of 2008. The said writ petition had been disposed by an order dated 18.02.2009, in which the following order has been passed:

The learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. Head the petitioner who is present in person and Mr.Rajarajan, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 to 7. 2.The Public Interest Litigation has been filed for directing the respondents to provide proper and adequate sanitation coverage in the 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis four villages of Chinnakollapatti Panchayat in Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. 3.It appears that representations, dated 04.12.2007 and 19.09.2008 had been submitted to the District Collector, Virudhunagar. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the contentions raised, we call upon the District Collector, Viriudhunagar, to consider the representation, dated 19.09.2008, and take any appropriate action, as may be found necessary, as expeditiously as possible. 4.The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Consequently connected M.Ps. Are closed. No costs.”

2.There is no representation on behalf of the review petitioner. 3.In the grounds seeking review, it had been stated that after filing of the writ petition, the award had been granted in accordance with the schedule and therefore, the petitioner had filed an application seeking consequential amendment of the prayer. The said petition was not considered. 4.It is a trite law to point out that under the guise of review, the Court cannot sit as an appellate forum. If a particular petition has not been considered by the court, then that could be a ground for appeal and not a ground for review. 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5.Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed. No costs. [C.V.K, J.] [R.S.V, J.] 10.07.2026 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No ta To 1.The Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi. 2.The Secretary, Rural Sanitation Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 3.The Secretary, Department of Drinking Water Supply and Rural Development, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 4.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 5.The Block Development Officer, Sattur Union, Sattur, Virudhunagar District. 6.The Tahsildar, Sattur, Virudhunagar District. 7.The President, Chinnakollapatti Panchayat, Virudhungar District-626 203. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J. AND R.SAKTHIVEL, J. ta REV.APLW.(MD)No.9 of 2009 10.07.2026 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis