Gomathi v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.06.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Gomathi ... Petitioner versus

1. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2. The Inspector of Police, Reddiyarchathiram Police Station, Dindigul District.

3. G.Ganesamoorthy

4. Nehrudasan ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary action on the petitioner's complaint dated 28.03.2025.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Indrachithu For R1 and R2 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioner, with a grievance that he has been excommunicated from the village, has lodged a complaint before the second respondent Police and filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary action on his complaint dated 28.03.2025.

2. When this writ petition is taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, based on the written instructions provided to him by the respondent Police, submits that the complaint of the petitioner was enquired by the second respondent by treating the same as petition enquiry in CSR No.83 of 2025. They have called the opposite parties and enquired them. He further submits that the issue is with regard to the payment of tax for the temple festival. The opposite parties, during the enquiry, have agreed that they would 2/5

receive the tax from the petitioner. Recording their undertaking, the complaint of the petitioner was closed.

3. This Court considered the rival submissions made.

4. Though the petitioner claims that he has been excommunicated from the village, from the report of the respondent Police, it appears that there was some dispute with regard to the collection of tax from the petitioner by the administrators of the temple. During the enquiry, the opposite parties have also agreed to receive the tax from the petitioner.

5. Any form of discrimination cannot be permitted. It is the responsibility of the Village Administrative Officer as well as the respondent Police to ensure that the petitioner is not discriminated in the village. If anybody is taking the law into their hands, they have to be dealt with in accordance with law.

3/5

6. Since the matter has been amicably resolved by the respondent Police, this writ petition is closed. 03.06.2025 ogy NCC : Yes / No.

Index : Yes / No.

Internet : Yes / No.

To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2. The Inspector of Police, Reddiyarchathiram Police Station, Dindigul District.

4/5

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

ogy 03.06.2025 5/5