Kathiravan.R v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.01.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.1731 and 1733 of 2024 R.Kathiravan ... Petitioner versus

1. The District Collector, Dindigul District.

2. The Joint Commissioner , HR&CE Department, Dindigul.

3. The Thasildar, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

4. Irulaiya ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent dated 20.01.2024 vide proceedings No.Na.Ka.No.478/2024/A2 and quash the same and consequently, 1/4

direct the 2nd respondent to pass suitable orders permitting to continue and follow the existing practice, usage and customs for the forthcoming festivals in the Arulmigu Maha Parameshwari Mariamman Temple situated at Old Batalagundu Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District, pending adjudication of the Original Application in O.A.No.1 of 2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prithviraj For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Subba Raj, Special Government Pleader

ORDER

The grievance of the petitioner is that at the instance of 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent/the Thasildar, Nilakottai, has convened Peace Committee Meeting on 09.01.2024 and 10.01.2024 and suggested the parties to workout their remedy before the appropriate forum. However, under some pressure, the 3rd respondent has again convened Peace Committee Meeting on 27.01.2024 and 29.01.2024 and compelled the petitioner to participate in the Peace Committee Meeting and to accept the resolution proposed by him. When the 2/4

petitioner has refused to participate in the Peace Committee Meeting, the 3rd respondent has threatened him that he would pass final order, if he is not accepting the resolution proposed by him.

2. This Court time and again has reiterated that there is no statutory provision enabling the Tahsildar to conduct a Peace Committee Meeting and the resolution, if any, passed in the peace committee meeting is not having any statutory force and is not binding on the parties.

3. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the final order, if any, passed by the 3rd respondent. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

30.01.2024 ogy NCC : Yes / No.

Index : Yes / No.

Internet : Yes / No.

3/4

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

ogy To

1. The District Collector, Dindigul District.

2. The Joint Commissioner , HR&CE Department, Dindigul.

3. The Thasildar, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

30.01.2024 4/4