Allowed¶5

Clarence Mary a v. The Sub Collector

Madras HC9 Dec 2025WP(MD)/9963/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Certiorari under Article 226; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; W.P.(MD)No.9963 of 2025; Sub Collector Kumbakonam order Na.Ka.No.4388/2024/A3 dated 28.02.2025 quashed; enquiry held 29.01.2025 but notice served 30.01.2025; no enquiry on date of order; denial of opportunity to participate; appealable order no bar to interference; set aside and remanded for fresh enquiry; opportunity to petitioner, Sukirtha (R2) and all necessary parties; petitioner to appear with documents at first instance; deliberate absence permits ex parte conclusion; allowed with no costs; connected W.M.P.(MD)Nos.7421 and 15787 of 2025 closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed: impugned order dated 28.02.2025 set aside and case remitted to the first respondent for a fresh enquiry with opportunity to all parties; no costs; connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

Clarence Mary a Vs The Sub Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 28.02.2025, passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity to represent her case / participate in the enquiry held on 29.01.2025, ought to be set aside. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

On the sole ground that the petitioner was unable to appear in the enquiry held on 29.01.2025, after which the impugned order was passed, the Court set aside the impugned order of the first respondent and remitted the case back to the first respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

This Court can interfere with the impugned order, even though it was argued to be appealable, when the petitioner was not given an opportunity to participate in the enquiry.

¶3

Key takeaways

In the fresh enquiry, the first respondent shall give opportunity to the petitioner, the second respondent and all other necessary parties to participate; at the first instance, when notice is issued, the petitioner shall appear and provide the documents she relies upon; thereafter the first respondent shall conclude the proceedings and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.ratio¶4
If the petitioner fails to appear in the fresh enquiry and her absence is found to be deliberate, the first respondent shall conclude the proceedings in her absence.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), K. Surender, J. — Writ petition under Article 226 seeking certiorari to quash an order of the Sub Collector, Kumbakonam (Na.Ka.No.4388/2024/A3, dated 28.02.2025). The enquiry was held on 29.01.2025 but the notice was served on the petitioner only on 30.01.2025, and no enquiry was conducted on the date the impugned order was passed. Although the Additional Government Pleader contended that the order was appealable, the Court held it could interfere where the petitioner was denied an opportunity to participate in the enquiry. On that sole ground, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the first respondent for a fresh enquiry, directing that the petitioner, the second respondent and all necessary parties be heard; the petitioner must appear with her supporting documents when notice is first issued, and if her absence is deliberate the proceedings may be concluded without her. Writ petition allowed with observations; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.9963 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.12.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.9963 of 2025 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.7421 and 15787 of 2025

¶8

A.Clarence Mary ... Petitioner

¶9

-vs-

¶10

1.The Sub Collector, Office of the Sub Collector, Kumbakonam.

¶11

2.Sukirtha ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned order vide Na.Ka.No.4388/2024/A3 dated 28.02.2025 from the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sasi Kumar For R1 : Mr.B.Ramanathan Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.P.Samuel Gunasingh

¶14

_____________ Page 1 of 4_

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.9963 of 2025

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 28.02.2025.

¶19

2 . The brief facts of the case are that the impugned order was passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to represent her case. It is not in dispute that the enquiry was held on 29.01.2025; however, the notice was served on the petitioner only on 30.01.2025. The impugned order was passed after the enquiry conducted on 29.01.2025. It is further not in dispute that there was no enquiry on the date the impugned order was passed.

¶20

3 . Though it was argued by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent that the impugned order is appealable, this Court can interfere when the petitioner was not given an opportunity to participate in the enquiry. On the sole ground that the petitioner was unable to appear in the enquiry held on 29.01.2025, after which the impugned order was passed, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the first respondent and remit the case back to the first respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry.

¶21

_____________ Page 2 of 4_

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

W.P.(MD)No.9963 of 2025

¶25

4 . The first respondent shall give opportunity to the petitioner, the second respondent, as well as all other necessary parties, to participate in the proceedings. At the first instance, when the notice is issued, the petitioner shall appear and provide the documents she relies upon. After giving reasonable opportunity to all the parties concerned, the first respondent shall conclude the proceedings and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to appear and the absence of the petitioner is found to be deliberate, the first respondent shall conclude the proceedings in her absence.

¶26

5 . Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶27

NCC : Yes / No ( K.SURENDER, J .) Index : Yes / No 09.12.2025 smn2

¶28

To:-

¶29

The Sub Collector, Office of the Sub Collector, Kumbakonam.

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

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