Disposed

K.Neelavathi v. The District Collector

Madras HC5 Mar 2025WP(MD)/5933/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A widow alleged she was refused 'vari' contributions and excommunicated from a temple festival due to a land dispute with villagers. Officials said her representation was under consideration. The Court directed the official respondents to consider and dispose of the representation in accordance with law within fifteen days.

What did the court decide?

Direction to official respondents to consider and dispose of representation dated 06.02.2025 within fifteen days.

K.Neelavathi Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.5933 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶6

W.P(MD)No.5933 of 2025

¶7

K.Neelavathi ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The District Collector, O/o. District Collector, Sivagangai District.

¶10

The District Revenue Officer, O/o. District Revenue Office. Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶11

The Revenue Divisional Office, Er, O/o. Revenue Divisional Office, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District.

¶12

The Tahsildar, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶13

The Superintendent of Police, O/o. Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District , Sivagangai.

¶14

The Sub Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Manamadurai,

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 1 of 6_

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.5933 of 2025

¶17

Sivagangai.

¶18

G.Ramakrishnan

¶19

Govindaraj

¶20

Dharmaraj

¶21

Niraikulathan

¶22

Ramakrishnan ... Respondents

¶23

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider them petitioner's representation dated 06.02.2025 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr. R.Senthil Kumar For Respondents For R1 to R4 : Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar Government Advocate For R5 & R6 : Mr.R.M.Anbunmithi Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side)

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.02.2025.

¶27

According to the petitioner, she is a widow and one of the

¶28

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

¶29

Page No. 2 of 6

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.5933 of 2025

¶31

villager and she also used to worship the God, namely, Sri Kottrar Udaiyar Ayyanar Temple. Now, the villagers are taking steps to conduct “Kumbabisekam” for the said Temple in the month of 'Vaigasi' and they also collected 'vari'. The petitioner has also earlier paid 'vari' to the Temple Festival, but, now the private respondents have refused to receive the 'vari' and ex-communicated due to the land dispute pending between the petitioner and the private respondents. Therefore, she sent a representation dated 06.02.2025 to the official respondents, but they have not taken any steps. Hence, she has filed this petition.

¶32

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents no. 1 to 4 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents no.5 and 6 would submits that the representation of the petitioner is under consideration and they will conduct an enquiry and dispose of the same within fifteen days.

¶33

In view of the same and recording the above submission of the learned Government Advocate and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court even without issuing notice to the private respondents inclined to dispose of the petition by directing the official

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 3 of 6_

¶35

W.P.(MD) No.5933 of 2025

¶36

respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.02.2025 and dispose of the same in accordance with law within fifteen

¶37

[15] days from the date of this order.

¶38

With the above said direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶39

No costs.

¶40

05.03.2025

¶41

Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No Mac

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 4 of 6_

¶43

W.P.(MD) No.5933 of 2025

¶44

¶45

The District Collector, O/o. District Collector, Sivagangai District.

¶46

The District Revenue Officer, O/o. District Revenue Office. Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶47

The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. Revenue Divisional Office, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District.

¶48

The Tahsildar, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶49

The Superintendent of Police, O/o. Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District , Sivagangai.

¶50

The Sub Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Manamadurai, Sivagangai.

¶51

7.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 5 of 6_

¶53

W.P.(MD) No.5933 of 2025

¶54

P.DHANABAL , J.

¶55

Mac

¶56

W.P(MD)No.5933 of 2025

¶57

05.03.2025

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 6 of 6_

K.Neelavathi v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Neelavathi 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

Selvamani Vs The State of TamilNadu

H.Mohamed Abdul Kadar Vs The Superintendent of Police

Antony Adimai Vs The State of TamilNadu

P.S.Pandian Vs The Superintendent of Police

Rajagopal Vs The Superintendent of Police

Mi.Dha.Pandian @ Pandiarajan Vs The Commissioner of Police