Sasikumar, S/O.Vairamuthu v. The District Collector,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.05.2015

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM W.P.(MD).No.8006 of 2015 SASIKUMAR .. Petitioner Vs.

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIRUHDUNAGAR DISTRICT.

2. THE DISTRICT ADI DRAVIDA WELFARE OFFICER, VIRUHDUNAGAR DISTRICT.

.. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and to change the name of the village from Paraicherry to Jeevanandhapuram or Vadaku Achchamthavirthaan or Achchamthavirthaan Vadaku or any other name.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Bhagavath Singh For Respondents : Mr.D.Muruganantham Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

(The order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.) Heard Mr.G.Bhagavath Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.D.Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and to change the name of the village from Paraicherry to Jeevanandhapuram or Vadaku Achchamthavirthaan or Achchamthavirthaan Vadaku or any other name.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader has raised an objection to the grant of relief sought for in this writ petition by stating that such a prayer is not maintainable, that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

too, at the instance of an individual and it is further pointed out that the respondents are not competent authorities to consider the change of name of the village.

4. It is seen that the petitioner has sent a representation to the authorities on 09.07.2014 and he claims to be a District Committee member of an association, which is working for the people coming from the lower rung of the Society. According to the petitioner, unless the name of the village is changed, the children of the village will be affected and lot of confusion and other local issues will arise. The issue as to the change of name of the village cannot be directed to be done in a particular fashion by issuing a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. It is for the authorities and the local public to decide upon the change the name of village or panchayat. Further more, the petitioner is the sole person, who is said to have given a representation and it appears to be a not a collective effort. Further more, the District Collector or the District Adi Dravida Welfare Officer are not the competent authorities to effect any name change of village. Therefore, at this juncture, the relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this will not prevent the petitioner and other villagers to make a joint representation to the competent authority, which according to the learned Additional Government Pleader, is the Government, setting out all the facts for redressel of their grievances. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIRUHDUNAGAR DISTRICT.

2. THE DISTRICT ADI DRAVIDA WELFARE OFFICER, VIRUHDUNAGAR DISTRICT.

+1cc to Mr.G.Bhagavath Singh, Advocate Sr.No. 25636 +1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No. 25345 rj2/trp AA/27.05.2015/2p - 5c/ Order made in W.P.(MD).No.8006 of 2015 13.05.2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/