Madras High Court
A.Ganesan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 18 August, 2022
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
W.P.No.21744 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
W.P. No.21744 of 2022
and
W.M.P.Nos.20752 &20754 of 2022
A.Ganesan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Seyyar Revenue Division,
Seyyar, Tiruvannamalai District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Arani Taluk Office, Arani,
Tiruvannamalai District.
3.The Inspector of Polce
Kannamangalam Police Station,
Tiruvannamalai District.
4.The Inspector of Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowment Department,
Arani Division, Arani, Tiruvannamalai Dt.
5. K.C.Krishnamurthy
6. Murugan ..Respondents
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
W.P.No.21744 of 2022
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned proceedings dated 04.08.2017 of the 1st
respondent and the consequential impugned Peace meeting proceedings
dated 14.05.2019 of the 2nd respondent pursuant to the complaint lodged by
4th respondent and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultravires and
consequently direct the respondent 1 to 4 to remove the seal and to give
necessary police protection and allow petitioner to conduct procession of
Pidari Ponni Amman Deity as per our customary usage and right.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Neethidurai
For Respondents 1to4 : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings dated 04.08.2017 of the 1st respondent and the consequential impugned Peace meeting proceedings dated 14.05.2019 of the 2nd respondent pursuant to the complaint lodged by 4th respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent 1 to 4 to remove the seal and to give necessary police protection and allow petitioner to conduct procession of Pidari Ponni Amman Deity as per their customary usage and right.
________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 6 W.P.No.21744 of 2022
2.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 04.08.2017, the peace committee meeting was conducted by the respondents 1 to 3 in pursuant to the proceedings initiated under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. It is his further contention that if any order passed under Section 107 of Cr.P.C, the same shall not go beyond the period of one year. Hence, he submitted that the recordings in the peace committee meeting should be set aside.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondents 1 to 4.
4.This Court perused the impugned order and other materials available on records. When the peace committee was convened in pursuant to the FIR, both the parties have clearly agreed with the 2nd respondent/the Tahsildar that they will not remove the statue till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.86 of 2017. In the event of violation, they are subject to the law and the same has been recorded. Further, the order did not direct the parties to execute a bond for keeping the peace as under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the parties ________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 6 W.P.No.21744 of 2022 themselves have agreed in the peace committee meeting till the disposal of the suit, they are not removing the statue. Such recording cannot be construed as an order passed under Section 107 of Cr.P.C to set aside. The parties in the peace committee have agreed to wait till the decision of the Civil Court. Such view of the matter, the finding recorded in the peace committee meeting cannot be set aside under the pretext of proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C.
5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that because of certain finding, he has not even able to approach HR & CE Department.
6. In view of the above, such finding will not be a bar for the petitioner to approach HR & CE department for seeking appropriate orders.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
18.08.2022 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No nr/shk ________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 6 W.P.No.21744 of 2022 To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Seyyar Revenue Division, Seyyar, Tiruvannamalai District.
2.The Tahsildar, Arani Taluk Office, Arani, Tiruvannamalai District.
3.The Inspector of Polce Kannamangalam Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.
4.The Inspector of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Arani Division, Arani, Tiruvannamalai Dt.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 6 W.P.No.21744 of 2022 N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
nr W.P. No.21744 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.20752 &20754 of 2022 18.08.2022 ________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 6