Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1063 (MAD)

G. Venkatesan v. Secretary to Government

2012-02-28

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to initiate appropriate action, against the 6th respondent, as per the petitioner's representation, dated 27th July, 2011, against the Katta Panchayat order of Social Boycott of the petitioner, and his family and to restore water supply connection to his residence. 2. The petitioner is a native of Sekkumedu Village and is residing with his family, comprising of, his wife and son. The petitioner's daughter is married and living at Bangalore. The petitioner belong to Vanniar Caste and he is an agriculturist. The petitioner also works as a Tipper Lorry Driver. The petitioner had a dispute with his elder brother, Mr.Mahalingam, for which, the petitioner's family members were assaulted on 14th July, 2010. Pursuant to the dispute, a Panchayat was held, on the same date, by the Village Gounder/Headman, Mr.Devaraj, viz., the sixth respondent herein where, it was agreed to discuss the issue on the next day. The petitioner was compelled by the sixth respondent to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-, to conduct the Panchayat, which was paid by the petitioner, out of panic. 3. The case of the petitioner is that without hearing the petitioner, the Headman Devaraj, ordered the petitioner, to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-, as fine. Shocked by the said arbitrary and atrocious decision of the Katta Panchayat, the petitioner refused to pay any amount, as fine and asserted that he was, in fact, the victim. 4. The case of the petitioner is that on the refusal of the petitioner to pay the fine, the sixth respondent has directed that, the Panchayat socially boycotted, the petitioner and his family. 5. The averments made in the affidavit, filed in support of this Writ Petition, clearly shows that an attempt has been made by the petitioner to approach this Court, by giving a colour of civil dispute between brothers, to one of Katta Panchayat. The petitioner, in order to avoid the decision of Panchayat, held with the consent of the petitioner, has approached this Court, by submitting as if, he is being discriminated on the caste basis, whereas, the dispute in fact, is between the petitioner and his elder brother. 6. The petitioner, in order to avoid the decision of Panchayat, held with the consent of the petitioner, has approached this Court, by submitting as if, he is being discriminated on the caste basis, whereas, the dispute in fact, is between the petitioner and his elder brother. 6. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Panchayat directed that anybody, dealing with the petitioner, would be fined a sum of Rs.500/-. There is no material in support of this averment. 7. The petitioner also submits that supply of water connection to petitioner, has been blocked by sixth respondent. . The case of the petitioner is that, the water connection given to the petitioner's residence, was in fact, in the name of the sixth respondent, but, this fact was not disclosed to the petitioner, at the time of giving connection to his residence. The petitioner also sent a requisition for supply of water connection, to his residence. 8. The case of the petitioner is that, regarding the social boycott, representations were made to several authorities, including the Hon'ble Chief Minister and to other Higher Officials, which have been forwarded to respective quarters, for taking necessary action. 9. The case of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent conducted an enquiry, on 9th February, 2011, in the presence of said Deveraj, and ten other persons and in the course of enquiry, the sixth respondent attempted to assault the petitioner, but, the Police Officials did not take any action against him. The petitioner filed a detailed complaint to the Authorities concerned, but, no action has been taken so far. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court, for the aforementioned relief. 10. On notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the fifth respondent, wherein, a specific stand has been taken, that the allegations made by the petitioner, are totally false. The stand of the fifth respondent, in Paragraphs Nos.13 and 14, in the counter affidavit, denying the allegations of the petitioner, reads as under:- “13. Further, regarding the petitioner, dated 27.7.2011, as per the directions of the Superintendent of Police, this respondent conducted an enquiry, which revealed that no Katta Panchayat was done, either by Devaraj, or by anybody else and no social boycott was imposed against the petitioner, or his family members. The petitioner has come forward with false allegations. Further, regarding the petitioner, dated 27.7.2011, as per the directions of the Superintendent of Police, this respondent conducted an enquiry, which revealed that no Katta Panchayat was done, either by Devaraj, or by anybody else and no social boycott was imposed against the petitioner, or his family members. The petitioner has come forward with false allegations. Further, this respondent, after conducting an enquiry, submitted a report, dated 20.08.2011, to the Superintendent of Police, Vellore District. ( The copies of the enquiry reports are enclosed in annexure -A) 14. The enquiry report reveals that there is a dispute between the petitioner Tr.G.Venkatesan and his elder brother Tr.Mahalingam, as the petitioner for the purpose of buying a lorry, has borrowed a sum of Rs.80,000/- from the said Tr.Mahalingam. Regarding this, at the request of both the parties, a panchayat was convened, in which, the petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-to Tr.Mahalingam, but, he did not pay the amount and has been postponing the same. Further, regarding a land dispute also, a caveat petition, in O.P.No.101 of 2010, was filed in the District Munsif Court, Vaniyambadi, against Tr.Mahalingam." 11. It is admitted case of the petitioner, that he had paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- for holding the Panchayat. It was only after the decision went against him that he has chosen to file this petition on the facts, which are disputed. 12. A reading of the affidavit prima facie shows that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. In any case, in view of the counter filed, this Writ Petition, raised disputed question of facts, which cannot be gone into, by this Court, in exercise of Writ Jurisdiction. 13. Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 14. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.