Dismissed¶43

Natesan v. the District Collector

Madras HC20 Mar 2025WA(MD)/572/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal dismissed; police protection sought for temple (SRIMAN NARAYANA SWAMY THIRUKOVIL, Tirunelveli) based on compromise decree in O.S.No.371 of 2012; temple management disputes left to Civil Court adjudication; criminal allegations to be pursued by complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. rather than writ; appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent; W.A.(MD)No.572 of 2022 and C.M.P(MD)No.4945 of 2022; decided 20.03.2025 by G.R.Swaminathan and M.Jothiraman JJ.; dismissed with no costs.

What did the court decide?

After careful consideration, interference with the impugned order of the learned Judge is not warranted. ¶39

Natesan Vs the District Collector — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.572 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶8

W.A(MD)No.572 of 2022 and C.M.P(MD)No.4945 of 2022

¶9

Natesan

¶10

... Appellant / Petitioner /

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli.

¶13

2.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli.

¶14

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli.

¶15

4.The Inspector of Police, Panakudi Circle Police Station, Panakudi, Tirunelveli District.

¶16

5.Sahul Hameed

¶17

6.Arul

¶18

7.T.Balakrishnan

¶19

1/5

¶20

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

¶21

W.A.(MD)No.572 of 2022

8.Siva Perumal

9.Sivalingadurai

10.Ravi

... Respondents / Respondents

¶26

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to allow the Writ Appeal and set aside the order of the learned Judge in W.P(MD)No. 16936 of 2020 dated 10.02.2022 and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to give suitable protection to SRIMAN NARAYANA SWAMY THIRUKOVIL based on the compromise decree in O.S.No.371 of 2012.

¶27

For Appellant : Mr.J.Madhu For Respondents : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh Additional Government Pleader for R.1 to R.4 Mr.D.Saravanan for R.7 to R.10

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

¶30

Heard both sides.

¶31

2.The appellant herein filed W.P(MD)No.16936 of 2020 seeking

¶32

Police protection as well as direction against the official respondents to

¶33

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

¶34

2/5

¶35

W.A.(MD)No.572 of 2022

¶36

take action against the private respondents. The writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 10.02.2022 in the following terms:

¶37

“2.The relief is couched in such a manner as if only a direction is sought for. But the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition disclosed various disputes between the parties over the management of the temple and its administration. Therefore, unless those disputes are resolved or adjudicated properly before the Civil Court, no blanket order of direction cannot be granted in a Writ Petition. Similarly, the allegation of the assault or criminal offence also cannot give credence in this Writ Petition. If such occurrence as alleged or happened, the petitioner has to take steps to register the complaint then and there by resorting Section 200 of Cr.P.C., not in a Writ Petition. In such view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

¶38

Aggrieved by the same, this Appeal has been filed.

¶39

3.After a careful consideration, we are of the view that interference with the impugned order is not warranted.

¶40

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

¶41

3/5

¶42

W.A.(MD)No.572 of 2022

¶43

4.This Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,