Petitioner challenged an order closing his mill alleging procedural flaws in a Section 133 Cr.PC nuisance complaint filed by a neighbor. Court held petition infructuous as both parties had shifted residences, leaving no surviving dispute for adjudication.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
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.
W.P.(MD)No.12467 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
W.P.(MD)No.12467 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.9616 of 2017
P.Mohanram ... Petitioner
Vs.
Ramanathapuram District.
Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order made by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.A2/0563/2017 dated 28.03.2017 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff for
M/s.Ajmal Associates For R1,R2 & R4 : Mr.M.Ganesan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R3 : Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthick
O R D E R
This writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned order made by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.A2/0563/2017 dated 28.03.2017.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is running Rice and Flour Mill by name and style of “ Mohanram Rice and Flour Mill” in Vaigai Nagar, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. He https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ obtained proper permission and license for running the Rice and
1/2
W.P.(MD)No.12467 of 2017
Flour Mill. The third respondent is the neighbour of the petitioner and he wanted to purchase the petitioner's Rice and Flour Mill and the same was refused by the petitioner. So, over the dispute, the third respondent filed a complaint under Section 133 Cr.PC stating that the Flour Mill is causing nuisance and requested to take steps to close the Flour Mill. The first respondent issued a notice on 23.01.2017 and show cause notice was also issued. Without following the proper procedure action was initiated. So, this writ petition is filed for writ of certiorari and quash the order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.A2/0563/2017 dated 28.03.2017.
3.When the matter was listed for arguments on the side of the parties a representation was made by the petitioner that he has shifted his residence from the place of occurrence and it also admitted by the third respondent. The third respondent also informed the Court, he has also shifted his residence from the locality. So, nothing survives in this matter for further adjudication and the petition has become infructuous.
4.Recording the said submission made by the both counsel, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar
// True Copy //
To
+1 CC to Mr.M.S.JEYAKARTHIK, Advocate (SR-3143[F] dated 03/02/2021 )
W.P.(MD)No.12467 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.9616 of 2017 03.02.2021
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition for quashing an order under Section 133 Cr.PC regarding a nuisance dispute remains maintainable when parties have shifted residences rendering the dispute moot.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P. Mohanram
The Sub-Collector cum Executive Magistrate, Paramakudi
The Thasildar, Paramakudi Taluk
Mrs. Valarmathi
Dr. K. S. Sameeran
G. ILANGOVAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
