Petitioner challenged orders of the Principal District Judge and Tahsildar regarding a public notice, alleging non-compliance with Order I Rule 8 CPC. The court found the procedure had been followed and held any grievance should be raised before the civil court where litigations were pending, dismissing the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.9479 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.03.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
W.P.No.9479 of 2023
and
W.M.P.No.9549 of 2023
R.Natesan
... Petitioner
Vs.
Page 1
W.P.No.9479 of 2023
5.The Village Administrative Officer, A Thazhaiyur Village, Sankari Taluk, Salem District.
... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the orders passed by the respondents 1 and 4 dated 31.12.2021 and 10.02.2022 in Na.Ka.No.397/2022/P and quash the same, consequentially issue direction directing the respondents 1 and 4 to conduct de nova enquiry in the petitioner's complaint.
For Petitioner : Ms.R.A.Monalisha For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Kempraj For R3 : Mr.M.Chandru For R4 and R5 : Mrs.P.Raja Rajeswari Government Advocate
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J. )
The order dated 31.12.2021 issued by the Principal District Judge,
Salem, and the order dated 10.02.2022 issued by the Tahsildar, Sankari, Salem District, are sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.
Page 2
W.P.No.9479 of 2023
2.The grievance of the petitioner is that the procedure as contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure, i.e., Order I Rule 8 CPC had not been followed while effecting public notice. However, the learned Principal District Judge verified the records and found that the procedure as contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure had been followed. If at all any grievance exists for the petitioner, she has to approach the appropriate Court where the civil litigations are pending. Thus, the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition deserves no merit consideration. Consequently, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.S., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 05.03.2024
mkn Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Page 3
W.P.No.9479 of 2023
To
Page 4
W.P.No.9479 of 2023
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J. and K. RAJASEKAR, J.
mkn
W.P.No.9479 of 2023
05.03.2024
Page 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the public notice issued in the proceedings violated Order I Rule 8 CPC procedure.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R. Natesan
The Principal District Judge, Principal District Court, Salem
The Hon'ble District Munsif, Sankari
V. Chandran
The Tahsildar, Sankari, Salem District
The Village Administrative Officer, A Thazhaiyur Village, Sankari Taluk, Salem District
S.M. Subramaniam
K. Rajasekar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
