Palanisamy v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-07-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
1. Palanisamy S/o. Duraisamy Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The District Collector District Collector Office, Namakkal District 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Office Of The Revenue Division, Tiruchengode Namakkal 3.T.Ilavarasi Office At Tamil Nadu E-Governmence Agency, 807, 7 th Floor, P.T. Lee Chengalvaraya Naicker Building, Anna Salai (Mount Road) Chennai 02 4.Thangam M Section, District Collector Office, Namakkal 637 003
5.Appan Raj SSS Tahsildar, Kolli Hills, Namakkal District 6.Soundeswari H Section Supervisor, District Collector Office, Namakkal 637 003 7.Gandhimathi Election Assistant, Tahsildar Office, Paramathi Velur, Namakkal 638 182 8.RAJA Village Administrative Officer, Paramathi Velur Namakkal Respondent(s) PRAYER Directing the 1 st and 2 nd respondents to conduct enquiry and to take necessary departmental action against the 3 rd to 8 th respondents based on petitioner representation dated 23.07.2024 For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S.Arun Pandi For Respondent(s):
Mr.Naveen Kumar Govt.Advocate For R1 and R2
ORDER
The instant writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct enquiry in pursuance to the petitioner's representation dated 23.07.2024.
2. According to the petitioner, despite having a clear legal title and longstanding possession of the petitioner, the respondents 3 to 8 acted in collusion with certain private individuals for passing order in their favour. In this connection, petitioner sent a representation on 23.07.2024 complaining the alleged misdeed committed by the respondents 4 to 8.
3. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the entire grievance of the petitioner is against the order passed on 12.04.2022 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, one Ms.T.Illavarasi, who is arrayed as 3 rd respondent in this petition. The learned Government Advocate would submit that if at all the petitioner has got grievance against the order dated 12.04.2022, he is at liberty to prefer an appeal, instead he wants to succumbent the legal procedure by giving a complaint against the individuals those who have passed such an order.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that any action taken by the individual in their official capacity is protected. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate, the petitioner cannot be allowed to give a complaint based upon the order issued by respondents 3 to 8. However, the petitioner is given liberty to challenge the order dated 12.04.2024 in the manner known to law.
5. With the above observation, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. 28-07-2025 gd Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes
To 1.The District Collector District Collector Office, Namakkal District 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Office Of The Revenue Division, Tiruchengode Namakkal 3.T.Ilavarasi Office At Tamil Nadu E-government Agency, 807 , 7th Floor, P.T. Lee Chengalvaraya Naicker Building, Anna Salai (mount Road) Chennai 02 4.THANGAM M Section, District Collector Office, Namakkal 637 003 5.Appan Raj Sss Tahsildar, Kolli Hills, Namakkal District 6.SOUNDESWARI H Section Supervisor, District Collector Office, Namakkal 637 003 7.GANDHIMATHI Election Assistant, Tahsildar Office, Paramathi Velur, Namakkal 638 182 8.RAJA Village Administrative Officer, Paramathi Velur Namakkal
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
gd 28-07-2025