Thangaraj v. The Director Of Elementary Education
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.07.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN Thangaraj ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Director of Elementary Education, Directorate of the Elementary Education, DPI-Campus, College Road, Nungampakkam, Chennai.
2.The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Collectorate Office, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The District Education Officer, (Elementary Education), Office of the District Education Officer, Singarathoppu, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Head Master, SNV Government Higher Secondary School, Emaneshwaram, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.
5.Gugan Page No. 1 of 8
6.The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Town Police Station, Paramakudi.
... Respondents (R6 was suo motu impleaded vide court order dated 18.06.2025) PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing first to fourth respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.05.2025 within stipulated time as fixed by this Court and consequently to take necessary action as against the fifth respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Yasar Arafath For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam Government Advocate For R5 : Mr.A.S.Vaigunth For R6 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Criminal Side) *****
O R D E R
Pursuant to the order dated 18.06.2025, the case was listed for hearing on 02.07.2025. However, on 02.07.2025, the case could not be taken up for hearing. Therefore, the case is listed today for hearing. Page No. 2 of 8
2. This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first to fourth respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.05.2025 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court, and consequently, to take necessary action against the fifth respondent.
3. The allegation of the petitioner is that the fifth respondent, although employed with the fourth respondent, is indulging in money lending, and his behaviour is not in consonance with the position held by him as a school teacher in the fourth respondent school.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents today produced the FIRs filed by the petitioner, the fifth respondent, and one Pandian, the details of which are given below: Crime No. Complainant'
s Name Accused's Name(s) Offence 36 of 2025 Thangaraj * 1.Gukan # 2.Pandiyan 3.Veluchamy 4.Thenmozhi Sections 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(2), 133 & 351(2) of BNS, 2023 Page No. 3 of 8
37 of 2025 Pandiyan 1.Thangaraj * 2.Gnanaguru 3.Sureshbabu Sections 189(2), 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(2), 133 & 351(2) of BNS, 51 of 2025 Gukan # 1.Suresh Babu 2.Thangarasu * 3.Jeeva 4.Prabhu Section 4 of TNPHW Act, * The petitioner herein # The fifth respondent herein
5. A reading of the above cases registered against the petitioner, the fifth respondent, and others indicates that there is a private dispute between the petitioner and the fifth respondent. This private dispute has reached the shores of the sixth respondent, who has registered FIRs against the petitioner in Crime Nos. 37 of 2025 and 51 of 2025.
6. A reading of the FIR in Crime No.51 of 2025, filed by the fifth respondent against the petitioner, reveals that the petitioner has been indulging in posting posters against the fifth respondent and his wife, Thenmozhi, who is Accused No.4 in the FIR in Crime No.36 of 2025, Page No. 4 of 8
along with the fifth respondent, one Pandiyan, and Veluchamy. It is further seen that the said Pandiyan has, in turn, filed a complaint in FIR in Crime No.37 of 2025 against the petitioner, one Gnanaguru, and one Suresh Babu.
7. The private dispute, which has taken the colour of alleged criminal proceedings by each of the parties mentioned above, cannot be a ground for taking action against the fifth respondent, as, prima facie, the complaints made by the petitioner appear to be motivated by a desire to settle personal scores with the fifth respondent, who is none other than the petitioner's nephew. The conduct of the petitioner also, prima facie, indicates that he has attempted to create disharmony in the name of the fifth respondent, which allegedly led to an attempt to commit suicide by the fifth respondent's wife. The attempt of the petitioner to portray the fifth respondent as a rowdy, thereby causing disrespect to the fifth respondent and his family members, also indicates the desperation on the part of the petitioner.
8. Therefore, no direction can be issued to the official respondents to take any action against the fifth respondent. It is for the fourth Page No. 5 of 8
respondent to deal with the situation as and when a case is made out for taking action against the fifth respondent. However, such action cannot be taken at the behest of the petitioner, considering the nature of the dispute between the petitioner and the fifth respondent.
9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. 08.07.2025 JEN Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No To 1.The Director of Elementary Education, Directorate of the Elementary Education, DPI-Campus, College Road, Nungampakkam, Chennai.
2.The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Collectorate Office, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The District Education Officer, (Elementary Education), Office of the District Education Officer, Singarathoppu, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.
Page No. 6 of 8
4.The Head Master, SNV Government Higher Secondary School, Emaneshwaram, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Town Police Station, Paramakudi.
Page No. 7 of 8
C.SARAVANAN , J.
JEN 08.07.2025 Page No. 8 of 8