Madras High CourtWP(MD)/14223/2019dismissed as infructuous

Thirumani, v. The District Collector,

2022-03-11Honourable Mr Justice G.Ilangovan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.03.2022 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Thirumani ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector, Collectorate Building, Tuticorin District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vilathikulam, Tuticorin District.

5. The Inspector of Police, Tharuvaikulam Police Station, Tuticorin District.

6. Mr.Muthumuniyasamy ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 to 5 to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation, dated 17.06.2019 within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court and to conduct a Peace Committee Meeting related to the representation. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran For R1 to R5 : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy Government Advocate (Crl Side) For R6 : Mr.Jeya Karthick

ORDER

This petition is filed seeking direction to the respondents 1 to 5 to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation, dated 17.06.2019, within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court and conduct a Peace Committee Meeting related to the representation.

1/3

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that because of some trouble in the village, the petitioner has been ex-communicated from the village by the 6th respondent. The sixth respondent also threatened the villagers saying that no one should have contact with the petitioner's family and fine of Rs.500/- will be imposed as fine for contacting his family. So far, 14 persons have been excommunicated by the 6th respondent for talking with the petitioner. They have celebrated festival in the temple. But, tax was not collected from the petitioner and 14 others.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl Side) would submit that the dispute arose between the parties only with regard to the celebration of temple festival. The petitioner sent a representation to the first respondent, on 17.06.2019. The said representation was referred to the official respondents to convene a Peace Committee Meeting to settle the issue, so that, all the village people will participate in the temple festival. It is also stated that on 21.10.2020, a Peace Committee Meeting was convened. In the Peace Committee Meeting, a resolution was passed that no restriction should be imposed on any one of them to participate in the temple festival. In view of the above said resolution, a compromise has been reached between the parties.

4. There was no request from the petitioner to take action aginst the private respondent for ex-communication, in view of the above development.

5. The learned counsel for the sixth respondent would submit that because of removal of the encroachment, the dispute arose between the petitioner and the 6th respondent.

6. In view of the above, this Writ Petition stands dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) ebsi Note :

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. 2/3

1. The District Collector, Collectorate Building, Tuticorin District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vilathikulam, Tuticorin District.

5. The Inspector of Police, Tharuvaikulam Police Station, Tuticorin District.

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

11.03.2022 RD(07.04.2022) 3P 7C 3/3