M.R.Stanley Jones v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.16830 & 16831 of 2025 M.R.Stanley Jones ... Petitioner Vs
1. The District Collector, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabapuram, Thukkaley, Kanyakumari District.
3. The Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
4. The District Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
1/8
5. The Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
6. The Inspector of Police, Marthandam Police Station, Nagerkovil, Kanniyakumari District.
7. The Principal, Christuraja Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Christhuraja Puram, Marthandam, Kanniyakumari District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned orders in O.Mu.No.01056/A5/2025, dated 28.02.2025 and O.Mu.No.02389/A5/2025, dated 17.04.2025, both on the file of the third respondent herein and to quash the same as illegal and direct the second respondent to take cognizance of the representation of the petitioner, dated 18.01.2025 and to take action upon the seventh respondents by affording opportunity to this petitioner and for consequential orders.
For petitioner : Mr. K.R.Laxman For respondents : Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman Government Advocate for R1 & R2 Mr.P.T.Thiraviam Government Advocate for R3 & R4 2/8
Mr.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R5 & R6 *****
ORDER
This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 3 and 4 and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents 5 and 6 and after dispensing with the notice on the seventh respondent, as no adverse orders are proposed to be passed against the seventh respondent.
2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned communications of the third respondent, whereby the representation of the petitioner to take action against the concerned Teacher, who was allegedly responsible for the injury to the petitioner's minor daughter has been rejected.
3. It is submitted that the impugned communications have been passed by the third respondent without any reasoning.
3/8
4. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents 3 and 4 submits that the motive of the petitioner is only to harass the seventh respondent/School. It is submitted that the petitioner has given a false complaint regarding the alleged injury suffered by the petitioner's daughter and that the motive of the petitioner is to cancel the recognition given to the seventh respondent/School as an Examination Centre for various exams. Hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition may be dismissed with exemplary costs.
5. That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner's daughter is no longer studying in the seventh respondent/School, as she was admitted in some other school after obtaining Transfer Certificate from the seventh respondent/School.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 3 and 4 and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents 5 and 6. 7.It is noticed that the petitioner has not given any private complaint against the respondents 4 to 7 for the alleged injury caused to the petitioner's 4/8
daughter in the seventh respondent/School. In any event, the representation of the petitioner has not been considered by calling upon the petitioner for a personal hearing.
8. That apart, the impugned communications/orders of the third respondent is non-speaking in nature. It merely rejecting the request of the petitioner. There has reasoning for the third respondent to reject the representation of the petitioner.
9. Be that as it may, the second respondent is directed to enquire and thereafter, take suitable action, if any offence against the seventh respondent/School is made out or close the file, as the case may be.
10. Needless to state, the petitioner, the seventh respondent and also the concerned Teacher shall be heard before the final orders are passed.
11. It is made clear that merely because the enquiry is conducted by the second respondent pursuant to the order of this Court, it shall not be considered as adverse to the career of the concerned Teacher.
12. This Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above observations. No costs. 5/8
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 11.08.2025 Internet : Yes / No apd To
1. The District Collector, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabapuram, Thukkaley, Kanyakumari District.
3. The Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
4. The District Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
6. The Inspector of Police, Marthandam Police Station, Nagerkovil, Kanniyakumari District.
6/8
C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd 7/8
11.08.2025 8/8