Y. Ahamed Basheer v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.02.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Y.Ahamed Basheeer ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Pudukottai.

2.The District Superintendent of Police, Office of the District Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi.

4.The Tahsildar, Aavudaiyarkovil.

5.The President, Al-laabeer Jumma Pallivaasal, Poiyadhanallur Post, Aavudaiyarkovil Taluk, Pudukottai District.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 1/6

4 to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 07.10.2024 by taking appropriate action against the fifth respondent and to pass such further or other orders as this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Micheal Sebastin For R-1, R-3 & R-4 : Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar Government Advocate For R-2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate For R-5 : M/s.Paranjothi for KBS Law Associates

ORDER

The present petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 07.10.2024 by taking appropriate action against the fifth respondent.

2. According to the petitioner, there are misunderstanding between the petitioner's family and one ROS family due to property dispute. The ROS family are the head of the Jamath. While so, in the year 2019, the family of ROS restricted the petitioner's family and denied to receive the water tax and also imposed fine of Rs.25,000/-. On 10.04.2024, the petitioner was restricted to enter into Jamath for praying. Therefore, they excommunicated the petitioner 2/6

and he sent a representation, dated 07.10.2024 to the respondents but the same has not been considered by the respondents. Therefore, the present petition.

3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents would submit that already they received the representation of the petitioner and conducted enquiry and based on the enquiry, no any excommunication existed as stated by the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent would submit that they received the complaint from the petitioner and the same is under enquiry and they will complete the enquiry within one week.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent would submit that the allegations levelled in the petition are all false and no any excommunication as alleged by the petitioner and already the revenue officials conducted enquiry and based on the enquiry, there is no truth in the petition. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 3/6

6. This Court had heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7. Considering the nature of the prayer sought for in this petition (i.e.,) to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 07.10.2024 and the second respondent also admitted that the representation of the petitioner is under consideration, this Court directs the second respondent to dispose the representation of the petitioner, dated 07.10.2024, within a period of one (1) week from the date of this order, after hearing all the interested parties and pass order.

8. With the above said observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

17.02.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR 4/6

To 1.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Pudukottai.

2.The District Superintendent of Police, Office of the District Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi.

4.The Tahsildar, Aavudaiyarkovil.

5.The President, Al-laabeer Jumma Pallivaasal, Poiyadhanallur Post, Aavudaiyarkovil Taluk, Pudukottai District.

5/6

P.DHANABAL, J.

BTR 17.02.2025 6/6