← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/18848/2023disposed of

Arockiadoss .M v. The District Collector

2026-01-08Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 08/01/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY M.Arockiadoss ... Petitioner Vs

1. The District Collector, District Collectorate, Tiruchirapalli -620 001, Tiruchirapalli District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirapalli - 620 001, Tiruchirapalli District.

3.The Tahsildar, Thiruverambur Taluk - 620 013, Tiruchirappalli District.

4.The Bishop of Tiruchirappalli, Diocese of Tiruchirapalli, Catholic Bishops House, 12A, Convent Road, Tiruchirapalli - 620 001, Tamil Nadu.

5.The Parish Priest, Ayyampatti Parish, St. Marys Magdaline Church, Ayyampatti Post, NIT Via, Tiruchirapalli District - 620 015, Tamil Nadu.

1/5

6.Lazer Antony ... Respondents (R6 impleaded vide Court order dated 08.01.2026 in W.M.P(MD) No.13631 of 2025) PRAYER :-Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to take action against the respondents 4 and 5 and to prohibit any form of discrimination in St. Mary Magdaline Church, Ayyampatti Parish, Tiruchirapalli Catholic Diocese, Tamil Nadu. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Karthick Advocate For R1 to R3 : Mr.A.Oliraja Government Advocate For R4 and R5 : Mr.S.Savarimuthu For R6 : Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents Nos.1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the respondents 4 and 5 and to prohibit any form of discrimination in St. Mary Magdaline Church, Ayyampatti Parish, Tiruchirapalli Catholic Diocese, Tamil Nadu. 2/5

2.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that in the present case, the official respondents conducted a detailed enquiry based on the complaint given by the petitioner. Upon such enquiry, they arrived at the conclusion that no such discrimination was made against the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner's complaint was closed.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 would submit that no such discrimination was made against the petitioner as alleged.

4.In view of the above submissions, the official respondents conducted a detailed enquiry based on the petitioner's complaint and arrived at the conclusion that there was no discrimination and accordingly, the petitioner's complaint was closed. Since no discrimination was made against the petitioner, there is no necessity for any action at the instance of the respondents 1 to 3. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

08.01.2026 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No 3/5

TO

1. The District Collector, District Collectorate, Tiruchirapalli -620 001, Tiruchirapalli District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirapalli - 620 001, Tiruchirapalli District.

3.The Tahsildar, Thiruverambur Taluk - 620 013, Tiruchirappalli District.

4/5

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY,J cp

ORDER

IN WP(MD) No.18848 of 2023 Date : 08/01/2026 5/5