Dismissed

Alagu Srinivasan.v v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum Sub Collector

Madras HC5 Mar 2021WP(MD)/4563/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging a show cause notice issued by the first respondent. The Court ruled that no cause of action arises until a final order is passed, making the petition premature at the notice stage.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the Court did not think it could be entertained at the stage at which the proceeding was brought.

Alagu Srinivasan.v Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.4563 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:05.03.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶4

W.P(MD)No.4563 of 2021

¶5

and

¶6

W.M.P(MD)Nos.3660 and 3661 of 2021

¶7

V.Alagu Srivinasan ...Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Sub Collector, Periyakulam, Theni District.

¶10

N.Kamuthurai ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.683/2021/B1, dated 12.02.2021 and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeganathan For respondent : Mr.M.Jeyakumar Nos.1 and 2 Additional Government Pleader

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The case of the petitioner is that he is an ardent devotee of Sangili Annan Kovil situated in 348/2B situated at Seelayampatti village, Theni district. The temple is having 4 kumbu. Donations were received from various people and properties were purchased in the name of A.S.Nallalagu Pillai on behalf of the temple. The property was also transferred in the name of said A.S.Nallalagu Pillai and he died on 18.01.1996 after the death of the said A.S.Nallalagu Pillai, the second respondent has been maintaining the temple for some time. However, he appears to have misappropriated the temple funds and therefore, a trust was created namely Sangili Annan Temple Trust in order to run the temple administration. However, the second respondent started claiming as if he is the Secretary of the said temple and also started claiming all legal rights over the said temple.

¶15

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

¶16

1/3

¶17

W.P(MD)No.4563 of 2021

¶18

2.In the above circumstances, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.82 of 2019 before the District Munsif Court, Theni and the same is pending as on date. While the matter stood thus, the first respondent has passed a proceedings on 12.02.2021, which is a show cause notice directing the petitioner to appear for enquiry before him on the basis of the application submitted by the second respondent for cancellation of patta.

¶19

3.The principal grievance of the petitioner in this case is that the first respondent is not the authority to issue the proceedings in terms of Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, since the original authority is only the Tahsildar. Therefore, the said show cause notice is issued without any authority and therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with.

¶20

4.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would reiterate the above legal contention and submitted that the writ petition has been filed principally on the ground of jurisdiction issue among several other issues. However, this Court is not inclined to be persuaded on the said arguments.

¶21

5.Even assuming that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice, it is still open to the petitioner to raise the jurisdictional objection before him and in case the said contention is illegally and unjustifiably rejected, then the petitioner can have a recourse to workout his remedy in a manner known to law. However, it is not certainly open to the petitioner to rush to this Court and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the pretext of challenging the jurisdiction of the first respondent in issuing show cause notice.

¶22

6.In matters of show cause notice, whatever be the legal or factual objection the parties must respond to the show cause notice and only when any order is passed there could be said to have a cause of action arisen and not before any order could be passed in pursuance of the show cause notice.

¶23

7.For the above stated reasons this Court does not think that the writ petition can be entertained at this stage and therefore, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

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

¶27

2/3

¶28

W.P(MD)No.4563 of 2021

¶29

dsk

¶30

¶31

The Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Sub Collector, Periyakulam, Theni District.

¶32

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-9471[F] dated 08/03/2021 )

¶33

W.P(MD)No.4563 of 2021 05.03.2021

¶34

VB (19.03.2021) 3P 3C

¶35

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

¶36

3/3

Alagu Srinivasan.v v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum Sub Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alagu Srinivasan.v v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum Sub Collector

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

Manikandan.P Vs The Managing Director

Jharsanya Logistics Pvt., Ltd., Vs the Branch Manager

Chinnamuthiah.S Vs the Thasildar

Velmurugan Vs the Dist Collector

Subburaj Vs District Revenue Officer

Jeyabalan.S Vs the Prl.Secretary and Commissioner