← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/5652/2012dismissed as infructuous

V.K.K.Gnanaguru v. The District Collector

2022-08-25Honourable Mr Justice K.Murali Shankar4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.08.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR W.P (MD).No.5652 of 2012 V.K.K.Gnanaguru ... Petitioner vs.

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.

4.The President, Duraisamipuram Saliyar Village Common Association, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.

... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the fourth respondent and other office bearers of Duraisamypuram Saliyar Village Common Association for pursuing ex-communication of the petitioner's family.

1/4

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Jayaramachandran For Respondents : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 to R3 No appearance for R4

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the fourth respondent and other office bearers of Duraisamypuram Saliyar Village Common Association for pursuing ex-communication of the petitioner's family.

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 18.08.2022, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has filed a report of the Inspector of Police, South Police Station stating that though the office bearers of the fourth respondent were ready to sort out the issue, the petitioner has not turned up.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the petitioner and his family members had attended the function held at the village. 2/4

He would further submit that there is no such ex-communication order against the petitioner's family and the office bearers of the fourth respondent has specifically informed the police officials that they have not passed any ex-communication order and that at no point of time, they have been avoiding the petitioner's family.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would further submit that since the petitioner has not turned up, the complaint was ordered to be closed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor may be recorded.

6. Recording the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. 25.08.2022 Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No csm 3/4

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.

csm To 1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

W.P (MD).No.5652 of 2012 25.08.2022 4/4