Kerala High Court
B. Ramar vs Union Of India on 16 November, 2018
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
WPC 37374/18
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY ,THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1940
WP(C).No. 37374 of 2018
PETITIONER:
B. RAMAR, AGED 70 YEARS
S/O VELLAICHAMI, M.RAMACHANDRAPURAM,
MANGALAM POST, SIVAKSI TLUK,
VIRUTHU NAGAR DIST, TAMIL NADU - 626138.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SMT.BHANU THILAK
SRI.DIPU JAMES
SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN
SRI.SETHURAM DHARMAPALAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF POSTS AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
NEW DELHI - 110001.
2 THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,
IDUKKI DIVISION, THODUPUZHA - 685684.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KUYILIMALA,
IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685603.
4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
VIRUTHU NAGAR DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU-626002.
5 THE TAHSILDAR,
SIVAKASI TALUK,
VIRUTHU NAGAR DISITRICT,
TAMIL NADU - 626124.
WPC 37374/18
2
6 THE INFORMATION OFFICE UNDER RTI ACT 2005,
OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POST
OFFICES, IDUKKI DIVISION,
THODUPUZHA - 685584.
BY ADV. SRI.RAMANARAYANA PRABHU
SMT.C.G.PREETHA-CGC,
SMT.AMMINIKUTTY-SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 37374/18
3
JUDGMENT
When this matter was taken up, I noticed that the petitioner is residing in Sivakasi Taluk in Tamil Nadu and that he is challenging the orders issued by the Tahsildar, Sivakasi Taluk, namely Exts.P4 and P5.
2. I therefore, asked the learned counsel for the petitioner how this writ petition is maintainable here, particularly because the entire cause of action or at least the substantial part of it, appears to have arisen within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Chennai, Madurai Bench. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Exts.P4 and P5 orders have been issued pursuant to certain earlier proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent and that it is therefore, that the petitioner chose to file this writ petition before this Court.
3. Even though I hear the learned counsel for the petitioner as afore, I am certain that WPC 37374/18 4 since the petitioner is residing in Sivakasi Taluk and since the orders impugned are issued by the Tahsildar, Sivakasi, the petitioner would obtain a better locus to maintain a writ petition in the High Court of Chennai, Madurai Bench.
When I made my mind clear as afore, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw this writ petition so as to approach the High Court of Chennai, Madurai Bench.
This request is granted and consequently, this writ petition stands closed as having been withdrawn, reserving liberty as afore prayed to the petitioner.
SD/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE WPC 37374/18 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.INV/AYYAPPANCOVIL/DIG. DATED 03/10/2013 AT THODUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 12/10/2013 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF FIR ALONG WITH COMPLAINT DATED 15/10/2013 IN CR. NO.609/2013 OF UPPATHARA POLICE STATION.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.
KA.A1/5148/2016 DATED 31/10/2017 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF NOTARY ATTESTED TRANSLATION OF EXT.P4.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO. A1/3078/2017 DATED 26/10/2018 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF NOTARY ATTESTED TRANSLATION OF EXT.P5.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION UNDER RTI ACT 2005 DATED 05/11/2018 FILED BY PETITIONER THROUGH HIS NEPHEW BEFORE 6TH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE RR