A writ petition challenging a show cause notice regarding a land grabbing complaint was dismissed as premature. The Court held no final adjudication had occurred and directed the petitioner to participate in the enquiry.
Petitioner directed to give explanation to the show cause notice and participate in the enquiry.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.03.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN
W.P.(MD)No.5032 of 2014
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014
V.Subramani
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Registrar (Administration) Office of the District Registrar, Madurai (North), Integrated Registration Office Campus,
TNAU Nagar, Rajagambeeram Village, Y.Othakadai (post),
Madurai – 625 107.
2.U.Kesavan
...Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings dated 24.02.2014 in Na.ka.No.448/AA1/2014 on the file of the proceedings on the file of the first respondent herein and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Subbiah For Respondent : Mr.M.Alagadevan S.G.P., (for R1)
ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the impugned order issued by the first respondent, dated 24.02.2014.
2.The impugned order is admittedly a show cause notice issued to the petitioner as to why action should not be taken in response to the complaint dated 11.02.2014 of land grabbing. Before offering any explanation to the impugned show cause notice, the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court seeking to quash https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the said show cause notice.
2
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials, records and the pleadings made available in the aforesaid writ petition.
4.Since the impugned order is only a show cause notice and there was no final adjudication of the complaint, I do not think that the writ petition should be entertained at the present stage, which is rather premature and unnecessary.
5.In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to give explanation to the said show cause notice and participate in the enquiry. In case of any adverse decision is taken after participation in the enquiry, it is always open to the petitioner to work out his remedy as per law.
With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS I) /True copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
Integrated Registration Office Campus, TNAU Nagar, Rajagambeeram Village, Y.Othakadai (post), Madurai – 625 107.
+1cc to Mr.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya, Advocate Sr.No.13275
skn
sm:MR:17/03/2017:2P/4C
W.P.(MD)No.5032 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 07.03.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to entertain a writ petition seeking quashing of a show cause notice at a premature stage.
Whether the First Information Report against the petitioner should be quashed before the enquiry concludes.
V. Subramani
The District Registrar (Administration)
U. Kesavan
V. Parhiban
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
