Kalaiselvi v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

1/6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20-06-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH Kalaiselvi Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer Thiruchengode, Namakkal District 2.The Tahsildar Thiruchengode, Namakkal District Respondent(s) PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.1.2025 and pass orders within a time frame as stipulated by this Court.

2/6 For Petitioner(s):

Mr.J.Hariharan For Respondent:

Mr.E.Vijay Anand Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to deal with the representation made by the petitioner on 21.01.2025, wherein, the petitioner is seeking for providing an opportunity to prefer an appeal against the order dated 03.09.2025 and to contest the case on merits.

2.Heard Mr.J.Hariharan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.E.Vijay Anand, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3.It is not in dispute that proceedings were initiated against the petitioner's husband for illegal quarry and an order came to be passed in the year 2005 by levying penalty against him to the tune of Rs.1,64,21,440/-. The

3/6 husband did not take any steps by questioning the same during his lifetime. He died in the year 2020. The petitioner received attachment notice dated 13.11.2024 and at which point of time, the petitioner was not aware of the earlier proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents dated 21.01.2025, seeking for an opportunity to file an appeal and to contest the case on merits.

4.In the instant case, the order is of the year 2005 and the husband during his lifetime did not care to question the said order. After his demise, his legal representatives do not get an independent cause of action to question the same after nearly 20 years. Since the order has become final, steps are being taken by the respondent to attach the property and to recover the penalty. At this length of time, it is too far fetched for the petitioner to give a representation and ask the respondents to reconsider the order by way of an appeal. This Court does not find any merits in the present writ petition.

4/6 5.Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs. 20-06-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes ssr

5/6 To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer Thiruchengode, Namakkal District 2.The Tahsildar Thiruchengode, Namakkal District

6/6 N.ANAND VENKATESH J.

ssr 20-06-2025