Madras High CourtWP(MD)/4599/2018dismissed

T.Kumar v. The District Collector

2018-04-19Honourable Mr Justice M.Duraiswamy,Honourable Dr Justice Anita Sumanth3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.04.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P(MD)No.4599 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)No.4682 of 2018 Mr.T.Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

3. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

5. The Inspector of Police, Thiruvadanai Police Station, Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District.

6. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

7. Justin Fernando

8. Susila ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the third

respondent herein to issue appropriate community certificate to the petitioner by considering his representation, dated 22.02.2018.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.M.Jeyakumar, 1 to 6 Additional Government Pleader.

For Respondents 7&8 : Mr.A.Thirumurthy

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.DURAISWAMY,J.) The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to issue appropriate community certificate to the petitioner, by considering his representation, dated 22.02.2018.

2. Mr.M.Jeyakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 6 submitted that the third respondent had already issued the community certificate to the petitioner.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner also fairly admitted that the third respondent had already issued the community certificate as sought for by him in the representation, dated 22.02.2018. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the community certificate issued by the third respondent was illegally taken by the respondents 7 and 8 and therefore, the fifth respondent should take appropriate action against the respondents 7 and 8 for retrieving the community certificate from them.

4. Admittedly, the eighth respondent is the wife of the petitioner and the seventh respondent is his brother-in-law. Since the dispute is only between the petitioner and the respondents 7 and 8, the same cannot be resolved in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That apart, since the third respondent had already issued the community certificate to the petitioner, we do not find any reason to entertain the present writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar