Dismissed

M. Selvarani, v. the District Collector

Madras HC13 Oct 2011WP(MD)/11103/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the District Collector and Superintendent of Police to take action against two individuals for alleged exorbitant interest. The court held that since the police investigation concluded there was no substance to the complaint, the petitioner must adopt other available legal remedies.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a private complaint or work out the remedy before the Civil Court.

M. Selvarani, Vs the District Collector — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.10.2011

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

Writ Petition(MD)No.11103 of 2011

M.Selvaraj

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, Collector Office, Ramanathapuram District.

¶10

The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

V.Veerasamy

¶12

M.Dhanapalan ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to take necessary action against the 3^rd and 4^th respondents for inflicting Kandhuvatti torture upon the petitioner.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Pon Karthikeyan For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.B.Pugalendhi, Special Government Pleader

¶15

For Respondents 3&4 : Mr.V.Kannan

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police to take necessary action against the respondents 3 and 4 for an alleged offence under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003.

¶18

Heard Mr.R.Pon Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.V.Kannan, learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4.

¶19

The grievance of the petitioner is that he borrowed some amounts from the respondents 3 and 4 and also created a mortgage in favour of the third respondent under a deed, dated 20.06.2008. According to the petitioner, he has already repaid the entire amount

¶20

of loan and that by charging interest on interest at exorbitant rate, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the respondents 3 and 4 are harassing him. On the above basis, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the first respondent and next with the second respondent on the same day namely, 23.05.2011. Complaining

¶21

¶22

that no action was taken and that the police was insisting on withdrawal of the complaint on the pretext that the respondents 3 and 4 have already filed a civil suit, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

¶23

It is stated by the learned Special Government Pleader that the complaint was forwarded to the Paramakudi Town Police Station and that it was also enquired into by the Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Town. Learned Special Government Pleader produced a copy of the proceedings of the Inspector of Police where he has come to the conclusion that the complaint did not have substance.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 submitted that a suit has already been filed in O.S.No.88 of 2011 for recovery of money and that in the light of the suit, no action could be taken.

¶25

It is true that the pendency of a civil suit filed by the third respondent, is not a bar for the petitioner to lodge a complaint and pursue the same under the 2003 Act. But unfortunately for the petitioner, that stage has already crossed. The learned Special Government Pleader produced a copy of the report of the investigation conducted by the Inspector of Police. It has gone against the petitioner.

¶26

Under the 2003 Act, the method of taking cognizance of the offence under Section 4, is not specifically prescribed. However, Section 11 states that the Act is in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. But Section 12 states that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act would apply to a person referred to under Section 3. The prosecution has to be launched under this Act.

¶27

The petitioner also has one more remedy under Section 5 namely that of deposing the entire amount which according to him is due, into a Court under Section 7 of the Money Lenders Act and seek the Court to record full satisfaction. But according to the petitioner, this procedure could not be followed in view of the fact that according to the petitioner, no amount is now due.

¶28

Even then, it is always open to the petitioner to file a private complaint. The complaint lodged by the petitioner with the respondents 1 and 2 have reached their logical end. Therefore, the only remedy now open to the petitioner is either to file a private complaint despite the pendency of the civil suit or to work out his remedy before the Civil Court itself. Therefore, this Writ petition is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to adopt any of the above courses of action. No costs.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar (T&P)

¶31

/True Copy/

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

¶35

¶36

The District Collector, Collector Office, Ramanathapuram District. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District. +1 CC to Mr.R.Pon Karthikeyan, Advocate (SR.No.35620) +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.35724)

¶37

Writ Petition(MD)No.11103 of 2011 13.10.2011

¶38

sms NSV/28.10.11/3P/5C

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M. Selvarani, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Selvarani, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lanco Tanjore Power Vs the District Collector

G.Paramasivam Vs the Commissioner of Police

P. Subramanian Vs the District Collector

Sabruth Begam Vs the Regional Passport

R. Papanasam, S/O.Ramasamy, Vs the Superintendent of Police

S. Sumshu Neesha Begum Vs the Chief Executive