Madras High Court
P.Tamil Raja vs The Sub Collector on 24 November, 2022
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.P(MD)No.26390 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.26390 of 2022
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.20573 & 20574 of 2022
P.Tamil Raja ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Sub Collector,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Radhapuram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Valliyur,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Kudankulam,
Tirunelveli District.
5.The Manager (HR)
Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project,
Kudankulam Post,
Kudankulam Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
6.Sukin
7.Sudhan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
W.P(MD)No.26390 of 2022
8.Suyambulingam
9.Johnson
10.Pasuthan ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records of the 2nd respondent's proceeding in NA/A1/01/2022 dated 15.11.2022
and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 not
to interfere petitioner's company affairs matter.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.S.Ramakrishna Dass
For R1 to R4 : Mr.A.K.Manikkam
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for R1 to R4.
2. Considering the nature of relief to be granted, issuance of notice to R5 to R10 is dispensed with.
3. The petitioner challenges the decision taken by the first respondent on 15.11.2022. The first respondent has endeavoured to resolve the labour dispute between the petitioner on one hand and the workman on the other. The writ petitioner is a contractor for the fifth respondent. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4 W.P(MD)No.26390 of 2022
4. I do not want to go into the merits of the matter. It is well settled that a decision taken in the Peace Committee Meeting is not amenable to legal challenge. They are purely advisory and recommendatory in nature. The official respondents 1 to 4 will not exercise their power in order to enforce the decision taken in the impugned Peace Committee Meeting. This is because, the decision taken in such meeting is not traceable to any statutory provision. They do not have any statutory value or force.
5. With this observation and clarification, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
24.11.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
rmi
To
1.The Sub Collector,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Radhapuram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4 W.P(MD)No.26390 of 2022 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Valliyur, Tirunelveli District.
4.The Inspector of Police, Kudankulam, Tirunelveli District.
W.P(MD)No.26390 of 2022
24.11.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4