Kannusamy v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL W.P(MD) No.9276 of 2025 1.Kannusamy 2.Karuppayya

3. Mangayarkarasan ... Petitioner vs.

1. The District Collector Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

2. The Superintendent of Police Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Devakottai Taluk, Ramnagar, Sivagangai District.

4. The Thasildar Thasildhar Office, Devakottai Taluk, Ramnagar, Sivagangai District.

5. The Inspector of Police Devakottai Taluk Police Station, Sivagangai District.

6. K.R.Ramasamy Page No. 1 of 6

7. Durairaj

8. Sethu ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 5 to take action against the respondent Nos.6 to 8 for their illegal act of ex communicating the petitioners from the village and temple festival by considering the petitioners' representation, dated 04.03.2025. For petitioner :Ms.A. Banumathy For R1, R3 and R4 : Mr.K.R. Badurus Zaman Government Advocate.

For R2 and R5 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl side) *****

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioners to direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to take action against the respondent Nos.6 to 8 for their illegal act of ex communicating the petitioners from the village and temple festival by considering the petitioners' representation, dated 04.03.2025.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Page No. 2 of 6

respondents 6 to 8 in this case did not permit the petitioners to worship the god and they refused to collect tax from the petitioners. Therefore, they sent a representation, dated 04.03.2025, but the same has not been considered. Hence, they filed this petition.

3. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 would submit that the fourth respondent received a complaint from the petitioners. Based on their complaint, they conducted enquiry. As per enquiry, there is no any excommunication and the private respondents also have not objected to worship the temple by the petitioners and the temple authorities also have no objection to receive money from the petitioners. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl side) for the respondents 2 and 5 would submit that there is no excommunication as alleged by the petitioners and already the fourth respondent conducted enquiry in respect of the petitioners' complaint and the same was closed. Therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication.

5. Considering the prayer sought for in this petition, this Court, Page No. 3 of 6

without issuing notice to the private respondents, is inclined to pass orders in this petition.

6. According to the petitioners, they were excommunicated by the respondents 6 to 8 and thereby, they sent a representation, dated 04.03.2025. The fourth respondent also admitted the receipt of the abovesaid representation and the enquiry was conducted and the same was closed. Therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication in this matter.

7. In view of the above, recording the abovesaid submission of the learned Government Advocate, this Writ Petition is closed. 04.04.2025 NCC : Yes/No (2/2) Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd To Page No. 4 of 6

1. The District Collector Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

2. The Superintendent of Police Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Devakottai Taluk, Ramnagar, Sivagangai District.

4. The Thasildar Thasildhar Office, Devakottai Taluk, Ramnagar, Sivagangai District.

5. The Inspector of Police Devakottai Taluk Police Station, Sivagangai District.

6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Page No. 5 of 6

P.DHANABAL,J apd W.P.(MD) No.9276 of 2025 04.04.2025 (2/2) Page No. 6 of 6