Meenakshi.S v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.02.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN S.Meenakshi .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

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

3.Kajendran .. Respondents (R-3 is impleaded vide Court order dated 03.02.2025 in W.M.P.(MD).No.8237 of 2022 in W.P.(MD).No.7403 of 2022) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take suitable actions based upon the petitioner's representation dated 21.03.2022. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Ezhilarasu For R-1 : Mr.G.Suriyananth Additional Government Pleader For R-2 : Mr.K.Gnanasekaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner seeks issuance of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take suitable action based on the petitioner's representation dated 21.03.2022.

2. The petitioner pleads that she had pointed out to the District Collector, namely, the Inspector of Panchayat regarding the illegal activities being carried on by the third respondent. The Collector had also acted upon the said complaint. Thereafter, as the third respondent encroached upon a water body, the petitioner moved this Court by way of a Writ Petition. Angered by the onslaught brought about by the petitioner on the third respondent, she alleges that the third respondent prevented her from discharging her duties as an elected Councillor of 4th Ward of Kandipatti Village, Sivagangai District. She made a representation on 21.03.2022 to the respondents 1 and 2, bringing to light about the illegal activities of the third respondent and one Kannan. Since they did not initiate any action, the present writ petitioner has come before this Court.

3. This Court had issued notice to the respondents. Mr.K.Gnanasekaran, learned Government Advocate states that the Sub Inspector of Police, Madhagupatti Police Station summoned both the petitioner and the third

respondent for enquiry. However, they have informed him in writing that they will co-operate with the investigation after the disposal of this Writ Petition. Hence, Mr.Gnanasekar states that even though action was initiated by the Police, they could not proceed further on account of the failure by the petitioner and the third respondent in giving their statements to the Investigating Officer.

4. Mr.C.Ezhilarasu for the petitioner states that despite specific directions of this Court to consider the removal of the name of the petitioner's son from the history sheet list, the Inspector of Police, Madhagupatti Police Station has not initiated any steps so far. Hence, he pleads that the petitioner's complaint may not get fair treatment that it deserves.

5. The third respondent states that the petitioner's complaint is utterly false and is a vaguely moved one.

6. Be that as it may. A complaint having been lodged, it has to be taken to its logical conclusion. There shall be a direction to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai at Sivagangai District to enquire into the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 21.03.2022 and initiate appropriate action on the same.

7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

07.02.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm To 1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Sivagangai District.

Sivagangai.

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

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.

Lm 07.02.2025