Madras High Court
S.Sivanantham vs The District Collector on 17 August, 2020
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.No.10092 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.08.2020
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.10092 of 2020
and W.M.P. No.12261 of 2020
S.Sivanantham ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Tirupur District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Divisional Revenue Office,
Udumalpet.
3.The Tahsildar,
Udumalpet.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Udumalpet.
5.The Police Inspector,
Udumalpet.
6.A.T.S.C.Paramasivam
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.10092 of 2020
7.V.Marimuthu
8.S.Viswanathan
9.S.T.R.Iyappan
10.V.T.K.Iyappan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction of like nature calling for the records pertaining to the
Impugned proceedings dated 11.11.2019 vide M.C. No.1/2019/A2 passed
by the second respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr. A.Vijayasankar
For Respondents 1-3 : Mr. M.Elumalai
Government Advocate
For Respondents 4&5 : Mr. S.Karthikeyan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned proceedings dated 11.11.2019 vide M.C. No.1/2019/A2 passed by the second respondent and quash the same. 2/8 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.10092 of 2020
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a dispute between the petitioner's group and the sixth to tenth respondents group in respect of administering the temple called Sri Varadharaja Perumal Thirukoil at Anthiyur Village, Udumalpet. He would submit that the petitioner and other members of the temple committee have decided to conduct Kumbhabishekam in the existing place and constructed new temple, but the respondents 6 to 10 have formed rival team and opposed the said ritual function of Kumbabishekam, therefore, a complaint was lodged and the same was registered in Cr. No.314 of 2019 on 13.09.2019. He would further submit the said complaint was referred by the fifth respondent to the file of the second respondent herein to initiate the proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. and while pending proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C., a peace committee meeting was conducted by the second respondent on 11.11.2019 in which both the parties were participated and agreed for certain terms. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was compelled to agree the said term resolved in the peace committee dated 11.11.2019 and however, the petitioner did not agreed for the said terms and a such now 3/8 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.10092 of 2020 challenged the order passed by the second respondent by way of this Writ Petition.
3. It is seen that the petitioner's group and the sixth to tenth respondents group had dispute in respect of administering the temple called Sri Varadharaja Perumal Thirukoil at Anthiyur Village, Udumalpet. Due to the dispute a complaint was registered in Cr. No.314 of 2019 on 13.09.2019 by the fifth respondent and the same was referred to the second respondent for initiating proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. Pending proceedings, the second respondent had conducted a peace meeting on 11.11.2019 comprising the petitioner and the sixth to tenth respondents and after recording the terms, the second respondent had resolved the following resolution:
“Tl;l eltof;ifapy; fPHf ; fz;lthW Kot[fs;
vLf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ:
jw;rkak; epiyapy; cs;s mUs;kpF
bgUe;njtpj;jhahh; rnkj _tujuh$g; bgUkhs;
nfhtpy; kw;Wk; fd;dpak;kd; nfhtpy; ,l';fis
4/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.10092 of 2020
jpU/A.N.rz;Kfk;brl;oahh; jiyikapy; cs;s A
Party-apdh; itj;Jf;bfhz;L Fk;ghgpnc&fk; bra;J
bfhs;tJ vd;Wk;. nfhtpYf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l Rkhh;
48 brz;l; ,lk; kw;Wk; ma;ah; tPL Mfpa
,l';fis jpU/C.gukrptk; brl;oahh; jiyikapy;
cs;s B Party- apdh; itj;Jf;bfhs;tJ vd;Wk;.
bghJthf ghj;jpag;gl;l 48 brz;l; ,lj;jpy; A
Party- tifahuhtplk; cs;s ,lj;ij cldoahf B Party apdh; trk; 30/11/2019k; njjpf;Fs; gjpt[ bra;J bfhLj;jpl ntz;Lk;/ A Party-apdh; Fk;nggpnc&fg; gzpfis nkw;bfhs;Sk; bghGJ B Party- apdh; vt;tpj ,ila{Wk; bra;a TlhJ/ A Party- apdWk; Fk;nggpnc&fg; gzpfSf;fhf B Party- apdhplk; xg;gil bra;a cs;s ,lj;jpy; vt;tpj gzpfSk; nkw;bfhs;sf; TlhJ/ eh';fs; ,U jug;gpdUk; nkw;fz;l Tl;l eltof;ifapy; vLf;fg;gl;l midj;J eltof;iffSf;Fk; fl;Lg;gl;L elg;nghk; vd;gij cWjp Twp ifbahg;gk; bra;fpnwhk;/”” Now the petitioner is not willing to follow the resolution passed by the second respondent between the petitioner group and the rival group.
However, the resolutions resolved in the peace committee cannot be challenged by way of Writ Petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to ascertain his rights before the concerned Civil Court in accordance 5/8 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.10092 of 2020 with law, if so advised. Further, Section 107 Cr.P.C. proceedings is pending on the file of the second respondent and as such the second respondent is directed to complete the proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. between the petitioner group and the sixth to tenth respondents group within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, after giving liberty to the parties concerned.
4. This Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.08.2020
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
bkn
6/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.10092 of 2020
To
1.The District Collector,
Tirupur District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Divisional Revenue Office,
Udumalpet.
3.The Tahsildar,
Udumalpet.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udumalpet.
5.The Police Inspector, Udumalpet.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
7/8 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.10092 of 2020 bkn W.P.No.10092 of 2020 17.08.2020 8/8 http://www.judis.nic.in