Natarajan v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-12-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Natarajan Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The District Collector Ranipet District, Ranipet - 632 403.
2.R.Komala Head Master, Govt. High School, Ganapathipuram, Ranipet District.
3.Pichaimani Govt. High School, Ganapathipuram Ranipet District.
Respondent(s) PRAYER This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 25.08.2025 thereby to take appropriate and necessary action against the 2nd and 3rd respondents including awarding adequate compensation to the petitioner within a time frame as fixed by this Court. For Petitioner(s):
Mr.G. Krishna Kumar For Respondent (s): Mr.S.Balamurugan, Government Advocate.
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 25.08.2025 thereby to take appropriate and necessary action against the 2nd and 3rd respondents including awarding adequate compensation to the petitioner
2. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's son studying 6th standard in the 2nd respondent school. On 04.08.2025, the 3rd respondent Teacher, forcibly pushed the petitioner's son as such he fell down and sustained injury in the left hand. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent Teacher asked the petitioner's son to rotate the left hand clock wise and anti-clock wise and the student was remained in the school till evening. Thereafter, the petitioner's son was taken to nearby Hospital wherein the Doctor advised for surgery with implanting steel plate. On 05.08.2025, surgery was done and the petitioner's son was discharged on 06.08.2025 as such the petitioner was forced to spent Rs.50,000/- excluding medicines and post treatment. Alleging the same, a complaint was lodged before the Law Enforcing Agency but, no action has been taken. Hence, the petitioner made representation to the 1st respondent to take appropriate action against the 2nd and
3rd respondent. Since the same was not considered, the present writ petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this Court may issue a direction to the 1st respondent to conduct enquiry by considering the petitioner's representation dated 25.08.2025 and pass appropriate orders.
5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that except this allegation, no other allegation was made against the 3rd respondent Teacher and there is a contradictory statement in the initial complaint made before the Law Enforcing Agency and the subsequent complaint before the District Collector. On the basis of the indifferent complaint before authorities, the same cannot be entertained. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. I have perused the entire records. It reveals that the petitioner's son is the student of the 2nd respondent School, in which, the 3rd respondent worked as a Tamil Teacher and as per the medical record and AR copy, the alleged date of accident was on 05.08.2025, date of admission was on 06.08.2025 at 11.42 am. Except this allegation, no other allegation was made was made in the AR copy and subsequently on 21.08.2025, the petitioner made a complaint before the
Law Enforcing Agency to take action against the 3rd respondent Teacher and on perusal of the complaint dated 21.08.2025, it has been reported that as if the petitioner's son not performed home work thereby, the 3rd respondent Teacher pushed her son thereby, he sustained injuries however, the same was not revealed immediately after the accident dated 05.08.2025. However, the same was informed to the Law Enforcing Agency on 21.08.2025 after the lapse of 16 days. Apart from that, the petitioner made a representation to the District Collector on 25.08.2025. It is seen that the earlier complaint before the Law Enforcing Agency and the subsequent complaint before the District Collector is an improved version and on the basis of the improved version, this Court cannot issue a direction to the 1st respondent to take action against the 3rd respondent School Teacher.
7. This Court hopes and believe, the 3rd respondent as a School Teacher, for the interest of the children will always perform. If we are frequently interfered with the functions of the School Teachers, it will give a wrong signal to the student for encouragement of not performing the home work in the school and, the initial allegation made as if the petitioner's son fall on floor and for which, the 3rd respondent School Teacher to do some exercise by rotating the hand clock wise cannot be taken as serious allegation or to harm the student. It may be a lack of medical knowledge but, that will not amount to misconduct.
8. In view of the above discussion, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 05-12-2025 kkn Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes
To
1. The District Collector Ranipet District, Ranipet - 632 403.
2.R.Komala Head Master, Govt. High School, Ganapathipuram, Ranipet District.
3.Pichaimani Govt. High School, Ganapathipuram Ranipet District.
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
kkn 05-12-2025