Disposed

Lakshmi v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC31 Aug 2021WP(MD)/15349/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner sought a direction for a Peace Committee Meeting concerning a property dispute. The Court held that no law mandates such meetings but directed the third respondent to consider the representation and decide appropriately after providing a hearing, within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.03.2021, provide a reasonable opportunity to both parties, and take a decision within 30 days.

Lakshmi Vs the Superintendent of Police — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.15349 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 31.08.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P(MD)No.15349 of 2021

Lakshmi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District.

¶8

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangai, Pudukkottai District.

¶9

3.The Tahsildar,

¶10

Manamelkudi Taluk Office, Pudukkottai District.

¶11

4.The Inspector of Police, Kottaipattinam, Pudukkottai District.

¶12

5.The Assistant Director of Fisheries, No.22, Lakshmipuram 2^nd Street,

¶13

Pudukkottai Town and District.

¶14

6.Veeramuthu ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to conduct the peace meeting based on the petitioner's representation dated 18.03.2021.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner seeks a direction for the conduct of a Peace Committee Meeting by the third respondent. The petitioner states that there is a dispute between herself and her son, on the one hand, and the sixth respondent, on the other. Such dispute appears to pertain to a property bearing Survey No.104.

¶18

Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned counsel for the State, accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 5. He submits that the authorities concerned would examine the petitioner's representation and decide whether a Peace Committee Meeting or any other appropriate measures are required in the facts and circumstances.

¶19

The law does not impose an obligation on the official respondents herein to conduct a Peace Committee Meeting. Indeed, no law deals with such Peace Committee Meeting. Consequently, a mandamus cannot be issued for the conduct of a Peace Committee https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

1/2

¶21

W.P(MD)No.15349 of 2021

¶22

Meeting. Nonetheless, the petitioner has set out the nature of dispute between the petitioner and the sixth respondent. Such dispute has been brought to the notice of the official respondents herein. Consequently, such respondents should decide on the appropriate course of action.

¶23

Accordingly, without going into the merits of the dispute, the third respondent herein is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.03.2021 and take an appropriate decision in respect thereof after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the sixth respondent. Such decision may be taken and communicated within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

W.P.(MD).No.15349 of 2021 is disposed of on these terms

¶25

without any order as to costs.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶29

tsg

¶30

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶31

¶32

1.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District.

¶33

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangai, Pudukkottai District.

¶34

3.The Tahsildar, Manamelkudi Taluk Office,Pudukkottai District.

¶35

4.The Inspector of Police, Kottaipattinam, Pudukkottai District.

¶36

5.The Assistant Director of Fisheries, No.22, Lakshmipuram 2^nd Street,Pudukkottai Town and District.

¶37

+1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-27750[F] dated 01/09/2021 ) W.P(MD)No.15349 of 2021 31.08.2021

¶38

RD(7.09.2021) 2P 7C

¶39

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

¶40

2/2

Lakshmi v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alagarsamy K Vs the District Collector

Jeyakumar M.P Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

P.Periyasamy Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

Muthukrishnan P Vs the Secretary to the Government

Megala J Vs the Canara Bank

Ilango S Vs the State of Tamil Nadu