Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 389 (MAD)

S. v. Ramachandran Alias Ramu VS Tahsildar, Virudhunagar District

2013-01-17

M.JAICHANDREN

body2013
Judgment :- 1. There is no representation for the petitioner. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 had submitted that the present Writ Petition, filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable, as he has an alternative remedy, to seek the relief, before the appropriate civil Court. 3. In view of the relief prayed for by the petitioner and in view of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, this Court is of the considered view that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, to seek his relief, before the appropriate civil forum. As such, the Writ Petition stands dismissed, as not maintainable. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.