Dismissed¶41

P.Vadivel v. the District Collector

Madras HC4 Apr 2025WA/1007/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court writ appeal dismissed; Section 107 proceedings; Section 107 of the Civil Procedure Code; Criminal Procedure Code; time limit; Executive Magistrate; enquiry; Revenue Divisional Officer Coimbatore South; District Collector Coimbatore; Thasildhar Madukarai Taluk; obiter dicta not a precedent; enquiry conducted independently and in accordance with law; WP No.3201/2025 dated 03.02.2025; WA No. 1007 of 2025 dated 04-04-2025; S.M. Subramaniam; K. Rajasekar; C.D. Sugumar for appellant; Vadivelu Deenadayalan AGP for respondents; P.Vadivel; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Courts cannot fix a time limit for completion of Section 107 proceedings; the procedure is to be followed based on the field situation prevailing, and the Executive Magistrate is the best person to take the decision. ¶38

P.Vadivel Vs the District Collector — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether courts can fix a time limit for completion of Section 107 proceedings (the enquiry initiated by the RDO), i.e., whether the Section 107 notice/process gives cause to interfere through writ proceedings with the Executive Magistrate's enquiry.

¶38

Court's answer

¶38

Ratio / Principle

This Court finds no reason to interfere with the writ order impugned; consequently the Writ Appeal stands dismissed, without costs.

¶40

Key takeaways

The observations made by the learned Single Judge in the writ order impugned are obiter dicta and not a precedent; therefore the enquiry must be conducted independently and in accordance with law.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal dismissed — Madras High Court (coram S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekar JJ.; judgment by S.M. Subramaniam J.; 04-04-2025) in WA No. 1007 of 2025. Appellant P.Vadivel appealed the order in WP No.3201/2025 dated 03.02.2025, by which the learned Single Judge declined to entertain his writ petition challenging the enquiry proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore South, issued under Section 107 of the Civil Procedure Code. Held: Courts cannot fix a time limit for completion of Section 107 proceedings, since the procedure depends on the field situation and the Executive Magistrate is the best person to decide; no reason found to interfere with the impugned writ order. The learned Single Judge's observations were declared obiter dicta and not a precedent, and the enquiry is to be conducted independently and in accordance with law. Appeal dismissed without costs. (Passages regarding participation of the notice recipient and the paramount importance of the Section 107 procedure appear in this judgment as the appellant's counsel's contentions, not as this Court's holding.)

¶1

WA No. 1007 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04-04-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

WA No. 1007 of 2025

P.Vadivel

Appellant(s)

1.The District Collector Office of the District Collector Coimbatore, State Bank Road, Coimbatore District-641018.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Coimbatore South, State Bank Road, Coimbatore District-641018.

¶12

3.The Thasildhar Madukarai Taluk, Madukarai Coimbatore-641105

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

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

¶15

WA No. 1007 of 2025

¶16

WA No. 1007 of 2025

¶17

PRAYER

¶18

To set aside the order passed in WP No.3201/2025 dated 03.02.2025

¶19

WA No. 1007 of 2025

¶20

For Appellant(s): Mr.C.D.Sugumar

¶21

For Respondent(s): Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan AGP

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

(Judgment was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

¶24

The proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Coimbatore

¶25

South, issued under Section 107 of the Civil Procedure Code for conducting an

¶26

enquiry was under challenge in the writ proceedings before the learned single

¶27

Judge. The learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition and thus,

¶28

the present writ appeal.

¶29

The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that Section 107

¶30

of the Criminal Procedure Code proceedings initiated must be completed within a time limit. The notice issued under Section 107 proceedings would not

¶31

provide a cause for institution of the writ proceedings. A person received such

¶32

notice is expected to participate in the enquiry and submit his explanation /

¶33

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

¶34

WA No. 1007 of 2025

¶35

defence before the Executive Magistrate concerned. The procedures

¶36

contemplated under Section 107 is of paramount importance for the purpose of

¶37

maintaining peace and tranquillity in a particular locality.

¶38

Therefore, Courts cannot fix a time limit, since it is the procedure to be

¶39

followed based on the field situation prevails and the Executive Magistrate will

¶40

be the best person to take a decision. Therefore, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the writ order impugned and consequently the Writ

¶41

Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.

¶42