C.Balakrishnan v. The Registrar General,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.01.2020 CORAM :
The Hon'ble Mr.A.P.SAHI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD W.P.No.34638 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.35390 of 2019 C.Balakrishnan ... Petitioner -vs1.The Registrar General High Court Madras, Chennai 600 104.
2.The State of Tamilnadu rep. by the Principal Secretary, Law Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
3.The State of Tamilnadu, rep. by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
4.The State of Tamilnadu, rep. by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
5.The District Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkal.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 5 to establish and construct the District Munsif Court, Judicial Magistrate Court and Taluk office for Kumarapalayam Taluk at Pallipalayam Municipality limits, Namakkal District, based on the representation of the petitioner dated 03.10.2019 within a suitable time.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran For Respondent : Mr.V.Vijayshankar for R-1
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by Subramonium Prasad, J.) The instant writ petition is one for a mandamus directing the respondents to establish and construct District Munsif Court, Judicial Magistrate Court and Taluk Office for Kumarapalayam Taluk at Pallipalayam Municipal Limits in Namakkal, instead of Kumarapalayam Municipal Limits, Namakkal. 2.This Public Interest Litigation has been filed by a permanent resident of Pallipalayam, Kumarapalayam Taluk. The Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.16, Revenue Va.Ni.1(1) Department, dated 08.01.2016, bifurcating Tiruchengode Taluk and for establishing Kumarapalayam Taluk. All the offices in the new Taluk are now to be constructed in Kumarapalayam only. The grievance of the petitioner is that they would have to commute a distance of 30 kms.
to a new place where the Courts and other Offices are to be situated, which will cause inconvenience to the people residing in that area. It is also contended that new place is also not well connected by buses and it will not be in the interest of the people living in the locality. It is this Government Order which is under challenge in the instant petition.
3.It is trite law that Courts cannot run Government (refer Common Cause (A Regd.Society) vs Union of India and Others reported in 2008 (5) SCC 511; Divisional manager, Aravali Golf Club and another vs Chander Hass reported in 2008 (1) SCC 683; Balco Employees Union (Regd) vs Union of India and Others reported in 2002 (2) SCC 333 and Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union of India and Others reported in 2000 (10) SCC 664. Where the offices or Courts should be situated is purely a matter of policy and it is not for the Writ Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to decide where the Courts, Offices, etc., should be situated. Further, there is no right for the petitioner to dictate as to where the offices, Courts, etc. must be constructed. In any event, admittedly, the distance between the two places is only 30 kms.
In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.35390 of 2019 is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sra To 1.The Registrar General, High Court Madras, Chennai 600 104.
2.The Principal Secretary to Govt. of Tamilnadu Law Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
3.The Principal Secretary to Govt. of Tamilnadu, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
4.The Principal Secretary to Govt. of Tamilnadu, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
5.The District Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkal.
+1cc to Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi, Advocate Sr.349 +1cc to Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, S.C for R.G Advocate Sr.259 W.P.No.34638 of 2019 spd[co] srg 28/01/2020