Disposed

Kumarandi, v. the District Collector

Madras HC28 Nov 2023WP(MD)/16689/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this petition filed under Article 226 for compensation under the SC/ST Act due to property damage by a rival group, the Court held the petitioner could accept the sanctioned compensation under protest or approach the Special Court under Rule 12 of the SCSST Rules, 1989 if aggrieved by the low amount. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

No mandatory order issued for consideration of representation; petition disposed noting availability of Special Court remedy for dissatisfied compensation.

Kumarandi, Vs the District Collector — Caste Atrocities | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.16689 of 2012

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 28.11.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.16689 of 2012

¶7

Kumarandi ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.

¶10

2.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi,

¶12

Ramanathapuram District.

¶13

4.The Tahsildar, Kamuthi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶14

5.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kamuthi,

¶15

Ramanathapuram District.

¶16

6.The Inspector of Police, Kovilankulam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________

¶18

_____________ Page 1 of 5_

¶19

W.P(MD)No.16689 of 2012

¶20

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶21

India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 14.11.2012 based on the Section 6(v) of SC/ST Atrocities Act.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthusamy

¶23

For R-1, R3 & R4 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar,

¶24

Government Pleader For R2, R5 & R6 : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

[Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a poor person. The rival group damaged the house of the petitioner and other houses in the village belonging to Schedule Caste people. The damage was worth about Rs.5,00,000/-. Complaint was also filed before the sixth respondent. An F.I.R. was also registered in Crime No.73 of 2012. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is not compensated for the loss sustained by him. The respondents were only giving assurance to the petitioner. But, no amount is paid.

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 2 of 5_

¶30

W.P(MD)No.16689 of 2012

¶31

3.Counter affidavit is filed by the fourth respondent stating that as per the report forwarded by the Revenue Inspector and Village Administrative Officer, it transpired that some houses were damaged and eighteen names were forwarded by the Revenue Inspector. The total costs of damages were estimated at Rs.59,500/-. The petitioner has suffered damage of 20 tiles, his apportion for the damage was around Rs.3,000/-. The said amount was sanctioned. However, the affected people refused to accept the compensation, demanding higher compensation for their losses.

¶32

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 2, 5 and 6, submits that the said complaint is concluded in acquittal for the accused persons.

¶33

Be that as it may, there was no prohibition for the petitioner to accept the amount under protest. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the less amount of compensation, then the petitioner can approach the Special Court under Rule 12 of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes(prevention of Atrocities), Rules 1989.

¶34

With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs.

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 3 of 5_

¶36

W.P(MD)No.16689 of 2012

¶37

[S.V.G., C.J.] [K.K.R.K, J.]

¶38

28.11.2023

¶39

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶40

¶41

To:

¶42

1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.

¶43

2.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

¶44

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶45

4.The Tahsildar, Kamuthi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶46

5.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kamuthi,

¶47

Ramanathapuram District.

¶48

6.The Inspector of Police, Kovilankulam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 4 of 5_

¶50

W.P(MD)No.16689 of 2012

¶51

THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE and K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶52

¶53

W.P(MD)No.16689 of 2012

¶54

28.11.2023

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 5 of 5_

Kumarandi, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumarandi, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.R.Velu Vs The Inspector of Police

Parthiban Vs The Inspector of Police

Natarajan Vs The Inspector of Police

Sree Akilandeswari Mills Vs the Debts Recovery Appellate

M/S the Annai Memorial Medical Vs the District Collector

Saravanan.S Vs the Authorized Officer