Dismissed

Kulanthaisamy. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC18 Feb 2021WP(MD)/3072/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as not maintainable since it was filed against a show cause notice. The court held that the constitutional jurisdiction was being misused for a collateral purpose.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000 payable within two weeks to the Chief Minister's relief fund.

Kulanthaisamy. Vs The Revenue… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.3072 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.02.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.3072 of 2021 and W.M.P(MD)No.2470 and 2471 of 2021

Kulanthaisamy

.. Petitioner

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur.

¶11

2.Pakiyam .. Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1^st respondent in Tha.Pa.90/2020/A5, dated 28.01.2021 and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Karunanithi For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, No.1 Government Advocate

¶14

ORDER

¶15

When this Court expressed its intention to dismiss this writ petition, on the ground that this writ petition is not maintainable, as it is filed against the show cause notice, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner insisted that notice may be ordered and in the meanwhile, the matter would get settled.

¶16

2.This Court is unable to appreciate such a submission of the learned Counsel for petitioner as the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is misused for achieving a collateral purpose. In spite of warning the learned Counsel that the writ petition is not maintainable as the same is against show cause notice, the learned Counsel unfortunately, harping on issuing notice in the matter. Therefore the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/[Rupees Five Thousand Only]. The writ petitioner is directed to pay the cost within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the Hon'ble Chief Minister's relief fund for treating COVID-19 patients and in case the petitioner fails to pay the cost within two weeks, the District Collector concerned is directed to initiate proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act, for recovering the amount and to pay the COVID-19 relief as directed above.

¶17

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

¶18

1/2

¶19

W.P(MD)No.3072 of 2021

¶20

3.Registry is directed to mark a copy of the order to the District Collector concerned, so as to enable him to take action against the petitioner in case the petitioner does not pay the cost within the period stipulated. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶23

// True Copy //

¶24

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶25

¶26

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur.

¶27

Copy to 1.The District Collector, Thanjavur.

¶28

The Joint Secretary & Treasurer, Chief Minister's Relief Fund, Finance Department, Secretariate, Chennai -9.

¶29

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-6186[F] dated 19/02/2021 )

¶30

W.P(MD)No.3072 of 2021 18.02.2021

¶31

dks(CO) TR(09.04.2021) 2P 5C

¶32

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

¶33

2/2

Kulanthaisamy. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kulanthaisamy. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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

P. Murugan, Vs the Chairman

Krishnaveni.M Vs the Director of School Education

Hari Krishnan.N Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

Manikandan Vs The Inspector General of Registration

John Peter. S Vs The Tahsildar

Pitchai.S Vs The District Registrar