R.Thiyagarajan v. The Secretary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 09.04.2025 Coram:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY R.Thiyagarajan, .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Secretary Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009

2. The District Collector, Nilgiris District, Ooty

3. The Revenue Division Officer, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris District

4. The Tahsildar, Kundah Taluk, Nilgiris District

5. The Inspector Of Police Major Police Station, Manjoor, Kundha Bridge PO, The Nilgiris-643209.

6. The Sub Inspector Of Police Emerald Police Station, Emerald, Nilgiris District.

1/6

7. B.M.Devan.

8. K.M.Iyyappan.

9. N.M.Allimuthu

10. B.Devan

11. T.L.Natarajan

12. N.Jayaraman

13. M.R.Subramani

14. S.R.Sivakumar

15. T.Bojan

16. R.Ramesh

17. R.Vijay ... Respondents Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representations dated 27.11.2023 and 26.02.2024 and take necessary action against the illegality of respondents 7 to 17. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar.

For Respondents : Mr.S.Balamurugan, Government Advocate, For R1 to R4 : Dr.C.E.Pratap, Government Advocate (Crl.Side), for R5 & R6

O R D E R

The writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage without notice to the private respondents, as this Court is not deciding truth or otherwise of the allegations that are made against them.

2/6

2. The case of the petitioner is that when the petitioner sought to build a Temple in its own Patta land, the private respondents calling themselves to be the Village by way of an extra constitutional authority passed diktat that the petitioner should not construct the Temple. When the petitioner proceeded to construct the same, they passed further orders as if they are excommunicating the petitioner from the village and they even imposed fines the other people who attended the ceremonies in the temple. They have also further wielded their extra constitutional authority to cut the water supply to the petitioner's house also.

3. In the light of the above, the petitioner had made a representation. When the matter came for admission, the Learned Government Advocate submitted that already the second respondent has forwarded the petition for the enquiry by the 3rd respondent and after due enquiry, appropriate steps will be taken.

4. In view thereof, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents 3 and 4 to take appropriate action, if they find that any Kangaroo 3/6

Court or Extra-Constitutional Court is being conducted by any person. Needless to mention that the 5th respondent will also grant such protection as may be needed by the petitioner.

There shall be no order as to costs.

09.04.2025 bsm To,

1. The Secretary Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009

2. The District Collector, Nilgiris District, Ooty

3. The Revenue Division Officer, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris District

4. The Tahsildar, Kundah Taluk, Nilgiris District

5. The Inspector Of Police Major Police Station, Manjoor, Kundha Bridge PO, The Nilgiris-643209.

4/6

6. The Sub Inspector Of Police Emerald Police Station, Emerald, Nilgiris District.

7. The Government Pleader, High Court, Madras. 5/6

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.

bsm 09.04.2025 6/6