Disposed

S.Anusuya v. The District Collector

Madras HC18 Jun 2024WP/4567/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A lawyer sought mandamus for protection from her ex-husband, also a lawyer, who allegedly obstructed her practice in Coimbatore District Court. The 4th respondent filed an affidavit and undertook before the court not to disturb her practice or life. The writ petition was disposed of on that undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's representation effectively addressed through 4th respondent's undertaking not to obstruct her practice; writ petition disposed of, connected M.P. closed, no costs.

S.Anusuya Vs The District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

2024:MHC:2367

¶2

W.P.No.4567 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED : 18.06.2024

¶5

CORAM :

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶7

W.P.No.4567 of 2020

¶8

and

¶9

W.M.P.No.5414 of 2020

S.Anusuya

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, State Bank Road, Beside Police Office, Gopalapuram, Coimbatore - 641 018.

¶14

The Chairman,

¶15

Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, High Court Complex, Chennai.

¶16

The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, High Court Complex, Chennai.

¶17

Ramesh Kumar

¶18

Nithaya ... Respondents

¶19

Page No.1 of 6

¶20

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

¶21

Prayer:

¶22

W.P.No.4567 of 2020

¶23

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.12.2019 and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to take necessary step to provide protection to the petitioner's life and Profession.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Udhyasuriyan For R1 : Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh Additional Government Pleader For R2 & R3 : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian For R4 & R5 : Mr.P.Nagaraju

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. )

¶27

The writ of mandamus has been instituted to direct the respondents 1 to

¶28

3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 02.12.2019.

¶29

The petitioner and the 4^th respondent/Mr.Ramesh Kumar are

¶30

practicing as Lawyers in Coimbatore District Court. They married and from and out of their wedlock, one male child was born namely master Sanjay Hassan. The boy is now aged about 12 years and studying 7^th standard. On

¶31

Page No.2 of 6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.4567 of 2020

¶34

account of misunderstanding, the petitioner and the 4^th respondent decided to dissolve the marriage and accordingly, obtained a degree of divorce from the competent court of law. Even after divorce they are practicing in the District Court premises at Coimbatore. The petitioner sent a representation on 02.12.2019 to the District Collector stating that the 4^th respondent is not allowing her to practice peacefully in District Court premises at Coimbatore and causing nuisance and obstructing her peaceful movement in the Court premises. Since the District Collector has not initiated any action, the present writ petition came to be instituted.

¶35

Mr.P.Nagaraju, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 4^th

¶36

and 5th respondent would submit that the 4^th respondent has no such intention to cause obstruction to the peaceful practice of the petitioner in District Court campus at Coimbatore and he will not indulge in any such activities against her. The petitioner and the 4^th respondent are living separately and he will not cause any disturbance to her in the Court premises. In this context, the 4th respondent filed an affidavit giving an undertaking that he will not interfere with the affairs of the petitioner and further undertakes that he will not indulge in any act and interfere with the peaceful Page No.3 of 6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.4567 of 2020

¶39

practice of her profession and life as well in any manner.

¶40

In view of the affidavit filed by the 4th respondent before this Court, no further consideration is required. The petitioner and the 4th respondent are Officers of the Court and legal profession being a noble one, they are expected to maintain honesty and integrity and respect their colleagues practicing in the Court premises. The Bar Council of India Rules also stipulates that an Advocate is duty bound to respect their Colleagues Advocate. The 4th respondent/Mr.Ramesh Kumar is present before this Court and further undertakes that he will not cause any disturbance or nuisance to the petitioner and he will not interfere with her professional activities or any other activity either inside or outside the Court premises.

¶41

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of . No costs. Connected M.P. is closed.

¶42

[S.M.S., J.] [C.K., J.] 18.06.2024

¶43

Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No veda

¶44

Page No.4 of 6

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.No.4567 of 2020

¶47

¶48

The District Collector, State Bank Road, Beside Police Office, Gopalapuram, Coimbatore - 641 018.

¶49

The Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, High Court Complex, Chennai.

¶50

The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, High Court Complex, Chennai.

¶51

Page No.5 of 6

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.No.4567 of 2020

¶54

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

¶55

veda

¶56

Order in W.P.No.4567 of 2020

¶57

18.06.2024

¶58

Page No.6 of 6

¶59

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

S.Anusuya v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Anusuya 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

Caso and Commandant Vs R.Srinivasan

V.G.Jayamani Vs the Joint Registrar of Coop.Societies

K.R.Mani, Vs District Revenue Officer

P.Magesh Vs the Secretary

C.B.Suryanaraynan Vs The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry

M.Ahamed Shahjahan Vs Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry