Disposed¶24

K.Saravanan v. the District Collector Cum

Madras HC14 Mar 2025WP/9129/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ex-communication; funeral incident; ostracism; wreath/garland on dead body; hostile and inimical conduct; continuing vs one-time ex-communication; Writ of Mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; W.P.No.9129 of 2025; Madras High Court; D.Bharatha Chakravarthy; Namakkal District Collector; representation dated 03.12.2024; alternative remedies; criminal complaint; Civil Court compensation; individual remedies kept open; writ disposed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The grievance relates to an incident that happened at a particular funeral; there is no continuing ex-communication of the petitioner from the village. ¶23

K.Saravanan Vs the District Collector Cum — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct the first respondent to speedily conclude the enquiry/dispute arising on the petitioner's representation dated 03.12.2024. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

Keeping open the individual remedies of the petitioner against the second respondent before the appropriate forum, the writ petition stands disposed of, with no costs.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The grievance relates to an incident that happened at a particular funeral; there is no continuing ex-communication of the petitioner from the village.

¶23

Key takeaways

As of today the Court does not see any continuing ex-communication or any extra constitutional writ being issued by the second respondent or any other authority.ratio¶23
If the action amounts to a criminal offence, the petitioner could have filed a criminal complaint.obiter¶23
If the petitioner is aggrieved that the private individual violated any private right, it will be open to him to approach the Civil Court for compensation.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Article 226 – Writ of Mandamus) before the High Court of Judicature at Madras: the petitioner sought a direction to the first respondent (District Collector cum District Magistrate, Namakkal) to speedily conclude the dispute/enquiry on his representation dated 03.12.2024, alleging that the second respondent acted in a hostile and inimical manner during a funeral, preventing him from placing a wreath/garland on the dead body, which he contended amounted to ex-communication. Held: the incident was confined to a particular funeral; there is no continuing ex-communication of the petitioner from the village, nor any extra-constitutional writ issued by the second respondent or any other authority; accordingly the Court saw no basis to direct police authorities. The petitioner was pointed to individual remedies — a criminal complaint if the act constitutes an offence, or the Civil Court for compensation if a private right was violated — and the writ petition was disposed of keeping those individual remedies open against the second respondent before the appropriate forum, with no costs.

¶1

W.P.No.9129 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated:14.03.2025

¶4

Coram:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

W.P.No.9129 of 2025

¶7

K.Saravanan, S/o Kulanthaivel, Door No.1/101, PillaiyarTemple Garden, Thirumalaipatti Mail, Senthamangalam Circle, Namakkal District. .. Petitioner

¶8

/versus/

¶9

1.The District Collector cum District Magistrate, O/o The District Collectorate, Namakkal District. 2.R.Periyasamy, S/o Ramasamy, 3/56A,Thevvaipatti, Thirumalaipatti Village, Senthamangalam Circle, Namakkal District. .. Respondents

¶10

Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1^st respondent to

¶11

1/5

¶12

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

¶13

W.P.No.9129 of 2025

¶14

speedy conclude of the dispute as per the petitioner's representation on 03.12.2024.

¶15

For Petitioner :Mr.G.Munuraj

¶16

For Respondents :Mr.S.Balamurugan, GA for R1

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition is filed to conclude the enquiry on the petitioner’s representation dated 03.12.2024.

¶19

Upon perusal of the said representation and the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent acted in an hostile and inimical manner during the funeral of a particular person, thereby, the petitioner was ostracized from even placing the wreath/garland on the dead body. The same amounts to ex-communication of the petitioner. Therefore, the above writ petition is made.

¶20

2/5

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.No.9129 of 2025

¶23

From the grievance, it can be seen that it is an incident that happened in a particular funeral. There is no any continuing ex-communication, in which case, this Court can direct the concerned police authorities to see that, there is no ex-communication of the petitioner from the village. If the action amounts to any criminal offence, the petitioner could have also filed criminal complaint. If the petitioner is aggrieved that the private individual has violated any private right, it will be open for him to approch the Civil Court for compensation also. As of today, this Court does not see any continuing ex-communication or any extra constitutional

¶24

writ being issued by the second respondent or any other authority. Therefore, keeping open the individual remedies of the petitioner as against the second respondent before the appropriate forum, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶25

17.03.2025

¶26

ari Neutral citation:no

¶27

3/5

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.9129 of 2025

¶30

To: