Madras High CourtWP(MD)/9763/2025disposed of

Innasi v. The State, Represented By Its Home Secretary

2025-04-08Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL W.P(MD) No.9763 of 2025 Innasi ... Petitioner vs.

1.The State rep. by its Home Secretary, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai.

2.The District Collector, District Collector Campus, 3.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.the Superintendent of Police, 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai Ram Nagar, 5.The Inspector of Police Taluk Police Station, Ram Nagar, Devekottai, Page No. 1 of 6

6. Alex 7.Raj 8.Charles ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents 2 to 5 to conduct an enquiry regarding excommunication of the petitioner along with his family members by the Respondent 6 to 8 and consequently, provide adequate protection to the petitioner and his family members to live peacefully in the Mekkaraikudi Village, Devakottai, Sivagangai District. For petitioner :Mr.S.Parthiban For R1, R3 & R5 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl side) For R2 & R4 : Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar Government Advocate *****

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents 2 to 5 to conduct an enquiry regarding excommunication of the petitioner along with his family members by the respondent 6 to 8 and consequently, provide adequate protection to the petitioner and his family members.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents 6 to 8 excommunicated the petitioner by stating that the petitioner encroached some Government lands. In fact, the petitioner has not encroached any lands as alleged by them. However, during the chariot Page No. 2 of 6

procession, they have not stopped the chariot in front of his house and refused to collect tax. Therefore, he sent representation, dated 05.09.2024, but the same has not been considered. Hence, he filed this petition.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl side) for the respondents 1, 3 and 5 would submit that they already conducted enquiry based on the representation of the petitioner and the villagers stated that they have not excommunicated the petitioner and they have no objection to have a prayer in the church by the petitioner and they also ready to collect tax from the petitioner and further, they will take steps to stop the chariot as per the procedure.

4. Considering the prayer sought for in this petition, this Court, without issuing notice to the respondents 6 to 8, is inclined to pass orders.

5. As per the instruction of the Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl side), the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the villagers, including the private respondents also, have no objection to collect tax from the petitioner and also they have not excommunicated the petitioner. As far as the chariot is concerned, it is for the respondents 6 Page No. 3 of 6

and 7 to consider the request of the petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5 are directed to ensure that as per the procedure, the chariot festival is conducted.

6. With the abovesaid observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

08.04.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd To 1.Home Secretary, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai.

6. Alex 7.Raj 8.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Page No. 5 of 6

P.DHANABAL,J apd W.P.(MD) No.9763 of 2025 08.04.2025 Page No. 6 of 6