K.Sampath v. The Superintendent Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA K.Sampath ...
Petitioner /vs/ 1.The Superintendent of Police, Salem, Salem District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chinnamathur, Mettur, Salem District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Mecheri Police Station, Dharmapuri Main Road, Dharmapuri.
4.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and charitable Endowment (Administration Department) Uthamar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.
5. The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and charitable Endowment (Administration Department) Arulmighu Kottai Mariyamman Temple Compound, Salem 636 001.
6.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and charitable Endowment (Administration Department) Arulmighu Kottai Mariyamman Temple Compound, Salem 636 001.
7.Fit Person/ The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Pasupathiswarar Temple, Mecheri, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.
8. K.Mohan Raj ...
Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the Respondents 1 to 3 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the building and land ad measuring 11 cents comprised in Survey No.1751/13 situated at Mecheri village, Mettur Taluk, Salem district. For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Rajarajan For Respondents 1-7 ... Mr.S.Santhosh, Govt. Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
This Writ petition has been preferred to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the building and land measuring 11 cents comprised in Survey No.175 of 2013 situated at Mecheri Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District and grant further orders.
2. Since the 8th respondent being a private respondent and the relief sought for is only against the respondents 1 and 3 notice against the 8th respondent is dispensed.
3. The petitioner has submitted that he is a tenant under the HR&CE Department and the eviction proceedings have been initiated against him under Section 78 of the HR&CE Act and an Eviction order has also been passed, against which, the petitioner has filed a revision in RP.No.34 of 2010 before the Commissioner of HR&CE Department and that was also disposed on 22.9.2011. However the petitioner retained the possession by paying a fair rent fixed by the HR&CE department under Section 34 A(3) of
the HR&CE Act.
4. According to the petitioner, the 8th respondent is a tenant and he had vacated the property and thereafter he filed a writ petition in WP.No.22716 of 2022 seeking a Writ of Mandamus against the department respondents to consider his representation dated 27.07.2022. In the said petition the petitioner was also a party but no notice was served on him. The 8th respondent who had vacated of the premises already had managed to get an order in WP.No.22716 of 2022 by suppressing material facts. Aggrieved over that, the petitioner has a filed an Appeal and is that he has filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition to dispense with the production of a certified copy of the order passed in CMP.No.18417 of 2022.
5. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that based on the order obtained by the 8th respondent by suppressing material facts, the respondents 1 to 3 are pressurizing the petitioner to vacate the premises in compliance with order dated 01.09.2022 passed in WP.No.22716 of 2022. In this regard the petitioner has also sent a representation to the respondents
1 to 3 on 6.10.2022.
6. The learner Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 7 also submitted that they are in receipt of the representation sent by the petitioner and the respondents will consider the same in accordance with law and do the needful.
7. Since the order passed in WP.No.22716 of 2022 is under challenge, the petitioner cannot be pressurized by the respondents 1 to 3 in the name of executing the order. Since the petitioner had already given representation in this regard and the respondents have also assured that they will consider his representation, I feel it is appropriate to direct the third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.10.2022 within a period of two weeks and do the needful in accordance with law. 01.11.2022 jrs Internet: Yes/No Index: Yes /No Speaking /Non Speaking
To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Salem, Salem District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chinnamathur, Mettur, Salem District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Mecheri Police Station, Dharmapuri Main Road, Dharmapuri.
4.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and charitable Endowment (Administration Department) Uthamar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.
5. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and charitable Endowment (Administration Department) Arulmighu Kottai Mariyamman Temple Compound, Salem 636 001.
6.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and charitable Endowment (Administration Department) Arulmighu Kottai Mariyamman Temple Compound, Salem 636 001.
7.Fit Person/ The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Pasupathiswarar Temple, Mecheri, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.
8.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
R.N.MANJULA, J.
jrs 01.11.2022