Thangapoo v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.02.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Thangapoo ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukkudi District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruchendhur, Thoothukkudi District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Authoor Police Station, Authoor, Thoothukkudi District.

4.Nagalingam 5.Muthukumaran 6.Jeya Raman 7.Ramkumar 1/6

8.Kandasamy ... 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 3 to take necessary action as against the respondents 4 to 8 based on the petitioner's representation, dated 03.01.2025 in respect of excommunication and consequently to ensure receive the Temple Tax from the petitioner and pass such further or other orders as this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Yasar Arafath For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor For R-4 to R-8 : Mr.V.Angusamy

ORDER

The present petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take necessary action as against the respondents 4 to 8 based on the petitioner's representation, dated 03.01.2025 in respect of excommunication and consequently ensure to receive the Temple Tax from the petitioner.

2/6

2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is the resident of Mela Authoor, Thoothukkudi District and there is a Mutharamman Temple situated in the Village and the petitioner also used to contribute Temple Tax. While so, the respondents 4 to 8, who are the administrators of the above said Temple now excommunicated the petitioner and they refused to receive tax for the Temple. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation to the District Collector, Thoothukkudi on 28.08.2023 but no action was taken and thereafter, again on 03.01.2025, the petitioner sent a representation to the respondents 1 to 3 for taking action, but no action was taken. Therefore, the petitioner filed this petition.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents would submit that they have not excommunicated the petitioner and the petitioner with false allegations approached this Court. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the official respondents would submit that they received the representation from the petitioner, dated 03.01.2025 and thereafter, they request letter to the revenue 3/6

authorities to conduct peace meeting and after completion of Peace Committee Meeting, suitable action will be taken.

5. Since the representation of the petitioner was already considered by the third respondent and there is a request by the third respondent to conduct peace meeting to the revenue authorities, they have to take appropriate action on the request of the police. The petitioner has not impleaded the revenue authorities as one of the parties in this petition. However, since already the third respondent requested the revenue authorities to consider the representation to convene Peace Committee Meeting, it is for the revenue authorities to decide the same in the manner known to law.

6. With the above said observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 18.02.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR 4/6

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukkudi District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruchendhur, Thoothukkudi District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Authoor Police Station, Authoor, Thoothukkudi District.

5/6

P.DHANABAL, J.

BTR 18.02.2025 6/6