Madras High CourtWP(MD)/3851/2019dismissed

Arulandhu, v. The District Collector,

2021-12-17Honourable Dr Justice G. Jayachandran2 pages

W.P.(MD)No.3851 of 2019 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 17.12.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN W.P.(MD)No.3851 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD)No.3332 of 2019 Arulandhu, S/o.Joseph ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

3.The Tahsildar, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Alangudi Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.01.2019.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Karthikeyavenkitachalapathy For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the writ petitioner, dated 22.01.2019.

2.The representation of the petitioner reads that the named persons in the representation are threatening to demolish the compound wall in his property and also threatening that they will ex-communicate him and also will not permit him to worship in the Village Church.

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor states that the petitioner's representation was enquired by the fourth respondent Police and found that the petitioner tortured his daughter-in-law Clara Mary and based on her complaint, the Villagers called the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

W.P.(MD)No.3851 of 2019 petitioner and enquired. Being infuriated by that, the petitioner has given false complaint against the Villagers and there is no incident of ex-communication or threat. Therefore, the complaint has been closed after due enquiry.

4.When the matter was listed for hearing on 14.12.2021, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to get instructions from the petitioner. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is no instruction.

5.In view of the status report filed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court finds that the writ petition has been filed with an ulterior motive and there is no truth in the averments made by the petitioner in his affidavit. Hence, this Writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

3.The Tahsildar, Alangudi Taluk,Pudukkottai District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Alangudi Police Station,Pudukkottai District. 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

W.P.(MD)No.3851 of 2019 17.12.2021 SR(CO) KB(29.12.2021) 2P 6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2