Dismissed

Varathappan.P v. The District Collector

Madras HC24 Feb 2023WP(MD)/223/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a summon for an enquiry. The bench held that the enquiry does not violate rights as any adverse order is subject to subsequent court review, and no interference was called for at this interim stage.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and the petitioner was directed to appear before the second respondent on 31.03.2023 for the enquiry.

Varathappan.P Vs The District Collector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.223 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.223 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)No.193 of 2023

¶7

P.Varathappan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector,

¶10

Collectorate,

¶11

Karur District.

¶12

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kulithalai,

¶13

Karur District.

¶14

3.The Tahsildar, Kadavur Taluk, Karur District.

¶15

4.P.Kamaraj ... Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the second respondent from proceedings with enquiry in Na.Ka.A1/2700/2019, dated 09.12.2022 on his file, till the disposal of civil suit in O.S.No.232 of 2019 on the file of the Sub Court, Kulithalai which was pending for the very same subject matter.

¶17

1/4

¶18

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

¶19

W.P(MD)No.223 of 2023

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.AN.Ramanathan

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3 : Mr.S.M.Mohan Gandhi for R4

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶24

The petitioner challenges the summon issued by the second respondent

¶25

calling upon the petitioner to appear for enquiry into the complaint lodged by the fourth respondent. The summon has been issued pursuant to the order dated 07.11.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.P.(MD)No.21710 of 2021. The said Writ Petition was filed by the fourth respondent and the petitioner herein was shown as fourth respondent. The petitioner had also appeared through counsel. The impugned summon by itself does not violate the rights of the petitioner. The authority is proposing to hold only an enquiry. If any adverse order is passed, the aggrieved persons can always knock the doors of the Court again. At this stage, no interfere is called for.

¶26

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

¶27

2/4

¶28

W.P(MD)No.223 of 2023

¶29

The Writ Petition is dismissed. The petitioner is given four more weeks. The petitioner shall appear before the second respondent on 31.03.2023 at 03.00 pm., No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

24.02.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi

¶31

¶32

1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Karur District.

¶33

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kulithalai, Karur District.

¶34

3.The Tahsildar, Kadavur Taluk, Karur District.

¶35

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

¶36

3/4

¶37

W.P(MD)No.223 of 2023

¶38

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶39

rmi

¶40

W.P(MD)No.223 of 2023

¶41

24.02.2023

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

Varathappan.P v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varathappan.P 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karuppiah Vs The District Registrar

Jeyalakshmi.K Vs The Union of India

Sridhar B Vs The Sub - Registrar

Sevu Meyyammai Atchi Vs the District Collector

Varsha Aqua Packed Drinking Water Vs The Assistant General Manager

Shanmugavelu P Vs the District Collector