A.Samiraj v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 16/04/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR A.Samiraj ... Petitioner Vs

1. The District Collector, Madurai District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur Division, Vellaripatti,Madurai District.

3. The Village Administrative Officer, Chokkalingapuram Village, Melur Taluk,Madurai District.

4. Anuradha, Village Administrative Officer, Chokkalingapuram Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to take departmental action against the 3rd respondent Village Administrative Officer, Chokkalingapuram Village, Melur Taluk, for the mis-communication before those Honourable Court based on petitioners representation dated 18.07.2024. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah For R1 to R3 : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.M.Mithun 1/6

ORDER

The petitioner herein approached this Court on earlier occasion by filing WP(MD)No.30540 of 2023 with a prayer to take necessary action against the respondents 9 to 12 therein for the illegal brick clamp unit run by the petitioner at Avarankadu, Sokkalingapuram Post, Melur taluk, Madurai District by considering his representation dated 05.06.2023. The said writ petition came to be closed as infructuous by order dated 05.01.2024 by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court basing upon the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents1 and 3 to 7 in the said writ petition.

2. It was thereafter the petitioner herein had filed a Contempt Petition alleging violation of the said order dated 05.01.2024 vide Contempt Petition(MD)No.1123 of 2024 and the said Contempt Petition came to be closed on 28.06.2024 leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for revival of the earlier writ petition. It was thereafter the petitioner claims to have submitted a representation dated 18.07.2024 before the second respondent with a request to initiate departmental action against the fourth respondent herein on the premise that the fourth respondent herein 2/6

has furnished wrong instructions to the learned Government Pleader resulting in closure of WP(MD)No. 30540 of 2023.

3. In the light of the above, this Court specifically asked the learned counsel for the petitioner herein to say on what basis the fourth respondent herein is sought to be held responsible for the so called furnishing of wrong instructions to the learned Government Pleader in WP(MD)No. 30540 of 2023. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is unable to show any basis for concluding that the fourth respondent herein is responsible for furnishing wrong instructions to the learned Government Pleader. Whether the fourth respondent herein furnished wrong instructions to the learned Government Advocate or not is not the subject matter of the present writ petition.

4. The relief sought in the present writ petition is only to take departmental action on the ground that the fourth responded herein has furnished wrong and erroneous instructions to the learned Government Pleader resulting in closure of WP(MD)No. 30540 of 2023 filed by the petitioner.

3/6

5. If at all, there is any misrepresentation on behalf of the respondents in the said petition, it is always open for the petitioner to seek re-open or re-call of the said order. But the remedy for the petitioner is not by way of seeking departmental action against the fourth respondent without there being any basis to say that fourth respondent is responsible for that. Even otherwise, the petitioner herein, being a third party, who has nothing to do with the employment of the fourth respondent herein, is not entitled to file a writ petition seeking departmental action against the fourth respondent.

6. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the relief sought in the present writ petition is totally misconceived. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 16.04.2026 CM 4/6

To,

1. The District Collector, Madurai District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur Division, Vellaripatti,Madurai District.

3. The Village Administrative Officer, Chokkalingapuram Village, Melur Taluk,Madurai District.

5/6

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J CM WP(MD) No.23980 of 2024 16/04/2026 6/6