Dismissed¶¶42

Arumugam.S v. The State rep by its

Madras HC1 Dec 2025WP(MD)/789/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; WP(MD) No.789 of 2023; writ of mandamus; spot inspection of school; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, Sections 6 and 12; student suicide; FIR closed after investigation; closure not challenged; locus standi; enquiry by educational authorities; harassment to teachers and students; representation dated 20.12.2022; Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department; Tenkasi; writ petition dismissed, no costs; WMP(MD) No.771 of 2023 closed; Krishnan Ramasamy J.; decided 01/12/2025.

What did the court decide?

As the FIR registered for the death of the student was closed after investigation and the petitioner did not challenge that closure, he has no locus standi to file the present writ petition seeking an enquiry by the educational authorities. ¶¶38

Arumugam.S Vs The State rep by its — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP(MD). No.789 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Date : 01/12/2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

WP(MD). No.789 of 2023 and WMP(MD) No.771 of 2023

¶7

Arumugam.S ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The State Rep by Its Principal Secretary, Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai..

¶10

The Commissioner, O/o. the Commissioner, Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai..

¶11

The District Collector, O/o. the District Collector, Tenkasi District..

¶12

The Chief Educational Officer, The Chief Educational Officer, Tenkasi District..

¶13

The Block Educational Officer, O/o.Block Educational Officer, Kadaiyanallur, Tenkasi District..

¶14

The Secretary, The Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Committee Higher Secondary School, Ariyanayagipuram, Kadaiyanallur Taluk, Tenkasi District..

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

WP(MD). No.789 of 2023

¶18

7. The Principal,

¶19

The Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Committee Higher Secondary School, Ariyanayagipuram, Kadaiyanallur Taluk, Tenkasi District.. ... Respondents

¶20

PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent No.3 to make a spot inspection to the respondents No.6 and 7's school as per section 6 and 12 of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 and file a report before the respondent No.1 regarding the death of three students including petitioner's son namely Seenu aged 12 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 20.12.2022 within the time stipulated by the Court.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Thirumurugan For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam for R1 to R5 Government Advocate Mr.D.Nallathambi for R6 and R7

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus to direct the respondent No.3 to make a spot inspection to the respondents No.6 and 7's school as per section 6 and 12 of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 and file a report before the respondent No.1 regarding the death of three students including

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

WP(MD). No.789 of 2023

¶27

petitioner's son namely Seenu aged 12 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 20.12.2022 within the time stipulated by the Court.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for

¶29

the respondents 6 and 7 and the learned Government Advocate for the official respondents.

¶30

The grievance of the petitioner is that his son by name Seenu aged about 12 years, was studying in the 6^th respondent school. While so, on 14.10.2022, he committed suicide and like that of the petitioner's son, other two students also died and in order to make an inspection in the school premises as per section 6 and 12 of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 and for filing a report, the petitioner has sent a representation on 20.12.2022 to the first respondent. Since the same has not been considered so far, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since

¶32

the Teachers shouted at the petitioner's son in the school, the petitioner's

¶33

3/6

¶34

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

¶35

WP(MD). No.789 of 2023

¶36

son died by hanging in the house. After the death, the petitioner has preferred a complaint, which was also registered and after investigation, the said FIR came to be closed.

¶37

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶38

It is seen that for the death of his son, the petitioner has preferred a complaint, which was also registered and subsequently, after investigation, it was also closed. When the FIR, which was registered for the death of a student, was closed after investigation, without challenging the said closure of the FIR, the petitioner has filed a writ petition, after giving a representation to the official respondents to make an inspection to the school premises. When an FIR came to be registered and it was closed, without even challenging the said closure, the petitioner has no locus to file the present writ petition to conduct enquiry by the educational authorities, which will not only be a harassment to the Teachers working in the said school but also for the students, who are pursuing their education, for which, this Court cannot be instrumental.

¶39

4/6

¶40

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

¶41

WP(MD). No.789 of 2023

¶42